dollars patent are invalid for lack of print description as this court said al kahn written description is about whether the skilled leader of the patent disclosure can recognize what is claimed and what is described argument is that the court improperly applied our plays marks type of cases with respect to method for is that correct yes your honor i d does the place mark analysis applied to the to the portion of the the spec that shows up in column a team your honor actually i don't think this is the place marks case i think this is an express disclosure case and if you take the claim which is a method that the force a method of treating m s the specification specifically describes a method for it has a method of treating not a place for our case like a new of a sign case where you have this extensive overwhelming genus and you're trying to identify a point within janus this is a specification where the focus from the very of four hundred and eighty dollars milligrams per day to seven hundred and twenty dollars milligrams per day specifically identified and if you look in column eighteen your honor at portions that were not cited by the district court not therapeutically effective is a limitation the claims in column five it is a concept that is specifically defined it is specifically defined as treating the hallmark characteristics of and we have to determine whether you know our reading of this passage makes a just record decision clear air and it was just kind of just let me just finish i know this is really hard to do but without the visual signals i wish d we were doing video ranges have things that work and doesn't work and then turns out that one of them has things that all work how do we know it was specifically understood that for eighty would work when we have overlapping ranges that where things again i would make these three points one is you have to read that portion of column eighteen as the culmination of a progression that starts in column one line want if it's read that way you understand then operative and i think if it were the two hundred and forty dollars that were an issue i think that there would be an express disclosure of two hundred and forty dollars but it would not be unable and that's why i think it's critically important that the issue here is just written written description purposes your honor and the question is again for written description purposes is disclosure is their disclosure of what is claimed and there is a disclosure of the monotherapy treatment method to now that those other ranges my might be or might not be effective for the other conditions you're not going to get an argument from us that when it talks about forty to seven funny we're not claiming to forty a compound of method of treatment it's known to have a threshold level of advocacy but then when it goes into three when it goes in the clinic what's what turns out to be true if it has much greater twenty milligram per day dose and that's precisely what the experts say the last thing i'll say in answer part of this question but also a question that j p l asked about the experts this isn't just a question o thirty nine with that as the backdrop because what columns seventeen and columns eighteen are talking about are the mechanisms for terminating a therapeutically effective and then when you get to column eighteen the determinations its appeal presents what biden contends are a handful of legal arguments but in reality and i think it's been borne out by the discussion this morning biden simply trying to re argue the facts all the assert require the use of a four hundred and eighty milligrams of d m f to treat m s but that four hundred and eighty milligram dose of the m s m is mentioned precisely once in the entire thirty column patent specification column eighteen and it's not connected to the treatment of m s or any of the dozens of other neurological diseases that the specification deals with so the issue at trial was whether a skilled artisan reading the specification in light of her background knowledge of the prior art would make the connection between the provider precise four hundred and eighty milligram dose mentioned one in column eighteen and ineffective and as treatment as claimed and  and frankly it doesn't seem like a difficult leap to conclude that it is so the question is once once you believe that that is that there is a connection between method for and the proposition that method for it mentions an ass it doesn't explicitly mention them as that never happens in the specification what they argue is that it mentions the mylan nation x so no loss in the ronal death which which are kind of what they characterize as the hallmarks of m s but even if you accept that method or mentions m s the problem is method for mentions all of the neurological diseases that are treated  that are dealt with by the specification and there are three dozen of them and that's best equally true of the definition of therapeutically effective dose bided like the kind of treat that as if it starts with the words the mylan nation but it hundred milligrams two thousand milligrams of b m s to be effective in treating m s is that right his answer that's correct then we go on to one thousand five hundred and forty three and he's asked essentially the same question about two thousand eight hundred dollars milligrams and he says correct the because what do we make of the fact that just in terms of what the law requires we have to keep in mind that there are distinctions between written description enable that and distinctions between obviousness and and written description so in other words you don't have to show efficacy to prove written description if you actually contain the language calling  right i would i was slightly disagree with that judge in maui and here's why the st of all the question is the question throughout all of this court's written description precedence is does a skilled artisan reading the patent specification understand with reasonable clarity that the inventors actually possess the claimed invention and that was a question of fact that was presented to the district court and so the would that change the result because it seems like that every grain each and everything else is the same there's no direct connection and all that kind of stuff as at least then it would seem that everything was in a range that s now know that range including for eighty is affected because of the phase three trials that were released in two thousand and eleven and this goes back to judge rana's question which was was there any evidence in two thousand and seven of the priority da that four hundred and eighty milligrams would be effective and i think my friend on the other side answer candidly no there wouldn't have been so but been taking your hypothetical just to use if we were at x but i yes sorry i just wanted to stop there because this is where i i'm a little confused about whether we're really still talking about or in the script you know we're going to enable that that if the range is disclosed are things that are written descriptions precisely the amount possession of the invention and so i'll take this two ways one as the specifications written and one with your hypothetical and as the specifications written i think as you pointed out we have this problem that in this single sentence undercut when dr when admitted that so was two hundred and forty dollars milligrams but the skilled artisan would regard that as effective now in your hypothetical if we were to say cut out the st three dose ranges from palm eighteen and so we don't say one  dosing regimen or those is not going to be effective is stated in the specification or whether the skilled artisan brings that knowledge with them to the specification it's the same it would be quite odd to suggest that the skilled artisans prove that a claim pharmaceutical compound actually achieves a certain result but when the inventor expressly claims that result our case law provides that that result must be supported by adequate disclosure in  specification and just as a nouveau here the skilled artisan comes with a specification thinking four hundred and eighty milligrams is not effective and the factual question again for the district court to watch the parties to experts who watched the two inventors testify is that sole reference to four hundred and eighty in column eighteen not linked to m s in a sentence with three other dos ranges that the skilled artisan reading the specification would be would believe would be ineffective in dosage i don't think it would i don't think it would just use in here's why so that hypothetical is we get rid of all the three dozen other diseases we get rid of all the dose reduce so we just have to forty seven hundred and twenty dollars but we still have the skilled artisans background knowledge coming to the specification that that two hundred and forty dollars milligram dose doesn't work that another dose within that range three hundred and sixty dollars milligrams doesn't work in m s and so the question then becomes a specification has to  specification information that would show that you know in fact we think that four hundred and eighty milligrams would work but they did well can i can i ask you about that time because i'm a little confused about the kind of dividing line between when you're allowed to claim a range that has both you know workable and non workable dosages and when it's a sufficient written description one that ranges an attack and what you have to do to have glaze marks because you know under the hypothetical it seems pret that this is only for him here's a fairly limited range even though some of it ultimately doesn't work you know we're climbing everything in the range that does work and you know the way you're answering this seems to suggest that the only way you're negates the disclosure of operative embodiments for written description purposes milers argument is that there are no blaze marks at all to an effective method of treating a mass with four hundred and eighty dollars milligrams of d m s there is no adequate disclosure in the pan specification of an operative embodiment period full stop and biases reliance on snit's or is is completely off point if you look at the facts of that case in smith's or the specification described fourteen specific ions for a single specific use activating a laser it was undisputed that the claimed ion was described for that precise purpose and it worked for that purpose but several of the other ions were eventually found not to work and that didn't result in a lack of written description the facts here are entirely different mr was not a blaze marks case it was undisputed that the claim them body meant worked and that it was described the other drugs in dozens of different or logical diseases and the specifications lone reference to four hundred and eighty milligrams is not tied to any of those specific diseases and again this mr debate here is kind of again back to question a back question whether there were sufficient blaze marks and again the district court who sat through four days of trial watched both of the parties experts heard from both of the inventors made the factual finding that it doesn't  that that certainly cannot be on this record found to be clearly  did not work that is not what's at issue here and in fact when this is judgement i think what is the issue here is whether the specification contains any evidence of the in two parts the spend and i'm not i'm not referring to your to your anchoring argument i want to get on the attorney argument and i want to get to specific evidence in the in the specification i know i understand your argument  claimed invention for a day here work it was known to work before the application was file it went into phase thirty one month after the application was filed it results in extraordinary results in the information i think the chart is asking about says here is the proof that it was effective but the argument we're making is for written description that that is not necessary at the end of the day that's the distinction issues here and the legal issue is a opinion from an expert that doesn't claim limitation be legally effective the answer is it cannot if there was an opinion french missed it didn't