the record the district court discusses testimony by various experts and says  to the trial as far as we were concerned because the question is a nine hundred eighty six did you contribute enough of a lesson to purify the isomers if she did we'd be a lot we we would fall dangerously but all these people said they believe that she did they believe she  the claim it's a composition class so what does it matter whether the prior art had one way or another as long as there is known in the art of church or why is it every other four known as a non obvious alteration no prior art there's no reason why you would do it but for the invention but for to invalidate this claim we all agree there is a motivation to purify that the fifty mixture there's no enabling because the more practical way to get the material is still the preferred way to get the material and the first to enable the mixture preferred method the first to enable the claim comes out as entitled to claim the content itself isn't it likely that one is on the way to attaining your product one goes through lest you run i'm glad your owner asked the question i think there was a some elements of confusion in the district court and  perhaps in the briefing because the internet a process does not at all ever make a mixture and never start with a mixture it completely still goes around the idea make it a mixture and synthetically only makes one it was going to be a trial issue sandoz drop the that that's admitted by sandoz so the question before this court is whether a logical reason is over acquired to modify the prior art and in the that's the only way you can find things are obvious over the hundred percent small amount of one hundred percent materials nobody want to use is to conclude that well it just doesn't matter that there's no reason to contaminate it so soon we should happens these days on product less talk about theoretical compound there was a new way to make it here that would have been easier to support found but more importantly under titanium metals there's no patentable difference between one hundred percent sure and the ninety two percent to ninety nine point nine nine their witness dr writer testified that the body would not know the difference between a ninety percent plus and one hundred percent pure so absent anything else there's nothing  trial that the other impurities might or might not contain six r but in any event the important point is the district were found there's no meaningful difference to the body between the compound that's claimed here and the compound in the prior art that makes it obvious und two signing a fact ninety four she she obtained highly pure success their witnesses didn't dispute that they did try to show  all of this information to conclude that a person is really art would have had reasonable success in separating the isomers one way or the other and that under a vintage that's a stronger case than obviousness under event s because here we success the question for obviousness is not whether the consumer which patented itself enabled although of course it's presumed enabled and it just or didn't find that they proved it wasn't so the question is whether all of the art including those to ninety nine point nine nine percent is in substantially different biologically equivalent to the body to the one hundred percent pure is alone enough that's why no one would do it because you're just adding impurities to it but that doesn't make it prior art yeah i think they probably could have taken a medicine dropper and have done that but why would they do that we're not required to show unexpected results they're required to show a motivation to modify they are ultimately the burden rests with them to show by clear convincing evidence that there was a motivation counsel my friend just was up just up here saying we don't need to show that indeed you always need to show motivation to modify the prior art at the prior art starting place is the fifty fifty next year i got we have motive all day we just don't have an enabling way to do it if the prior art is a hundred percent we have an enabling way to do it with no motivation to get there ok so whether whether whether your honour's think this is just a little bit worse than the prior art it isn't there's no way to make up bits of this stuff to make the pharmaceutical ultimately play the pharmaceutical no pharmaceutical company in their right mind that in any sense would have made a pharmaceutical based on as a medic process that yielded less than a gram of material and could be scaled