were you saying that claim two is not the source of your genus species argument that's trying to stay cool in other words the is when i use the term g s species i'm thinking of the argument stronger i say two but it's not doesn't go away altogether if you just sort of play two different and then it's still you think an anticipation argument as opposed to becoming a not obviousness argument well we also argue art years the answer that question is yes but that would prove too much i submit that would say whenever you have a prior disclosure quite clearly went through an analysis of his opinion based upon the testimony of their expert dr the club he was asked about example was the only difference between sample one and claim two is that example one is actually described as assault although i'm sorry no he's there anything let me let me focus your attention on the adamson case yes which we were opposing counsel invokes is there anything in the record here that would counter the what i take to be the underlying rationale of adamson that a person of skill new york will know from certain kinds of compounds that they are ricin make and that they have a stereo isomers that was sort of taken as a given that the cordon in adamson began with is there anything in the record here that would suggest that in this case this particular compound that is not something that a person of of skill in the you and here you have the balls back as i mentioned before that we have a serious i believe substantial claim differentiation issue here where we have one claim that does not include the annex in the language where the other claims do and one claim that does not include any reference to solve whereas there is other information the fact please correct me if i'm wrong but my recollection is maybe was the case involving the non addictive surprising non addictive property yes of the  which is virtually ignored by apple techs it's a memorandum written by an internal scientist at santa fe by the name of pierre simone and what pierre simone says and i'll give you your honest side to that place in the record we cannot envision development of the deep lost health for which the rats made our efforts therefore are turning to the deform and we are taking all possible steps to reduce our one last time they want four years of develop lead time by stopping the development of the rest of the dextre rotatory magic sixty four thirty and thirty nine this wasn't obvious why would any commercial enterprise strain to come to the market with a new drug that they cannot cause potentially fatal blood problems which is what's likely the prior aggregation directed why would they spend seven years and to make the less expensive the consumers those third party payers more just leverage in the marketplace i work to get them to receive that you have to give price concessions to get restoration back to more favorable to replace and there is no way to argument that you've already put a price on whatever the burdens of ab texas actions are via your agreement to the fifty percent price stipulation and  mean you could say well there is your demonstration proof plain and simple that you have the capacity to quantify your losses and in dollars and therefore you including the potential for layoffs including the potential for cutting back on clinical studies if we were facing if they were it done six months worth of this drug market in twenty four days by the time this case goes to trial this result of the january twenty second trial date in the absence of an injunction they would be able to dump the entire show off life of this drug into the market two years worth and under those circumstances under those circumstances it perfectly clear with the injury with it would be an enormous injury and we would not be supporting multi multi million dollar clinical trials for a drug which our school certainly has been lost for the next two years less one year or even a opinion says ten times i went back last night i counted ten times it relates to a permanent injunction situation the policy injunction situation which required the incident status quo heading into trial are dramatically different from the policy considerations when there's been a final determination that you are that you have one you're not trying to maintain a short term status quo you're trying to maintain a long term intellectual property rights you have very different predatory under those circumstances and i would urge the court with what is going to venture into the into the morning prickly area of trying to resolve a permanent injunction broad enough to apply for example to suppose i'm the petty and i say ok i make a a licensing offer to you and you say no i'm not interested and then i shoo you if i were close myself from ever getting an injunction by virtue of the fact that what but i have already committed myself to saying if you pay me this much money i'm happy and i'll go away is your position so broad that it would sink in that situation you've already demonstrated that there's inadequate  the damages were going to be and it's probably even after even if here you have some merit to argument here isn't it true that the trial judge found irreparable harm on other factors that are broader than simply