i guess is some issue in the briefs about what the issue is i think the issue here is what does one it to mean when it says that the prior art must sufficiently describe to claim invention to put it in session of the public the prior art in this case has a very long list of possibilities we can skip over a lot of issues has no guidance to any properties within that let me make a very simple example but what i would get well let me do my example and then it goes from there let's say i have an adventurer who invents a attorney who kind of see it and he says at least one for example one two three four five six seven and he goes on for ten pages now there's good reason he might do that if he can't ended kind of thing in a lift with a concrete number and i understand what you're thing from a policy perspective you'd like us to say at when a list gets long enough you want to treat them the same no not even say what a list gets long enough i'm saying to your client a method of music claim we have that pending but i accept that that is separate and distinct from a claim to the sequence of themes that that a method of use if you come up with a novel non obvious use is the way to go i mean this happens all the time in pharmaceuticals or compound plains where someone from the for a new and different use for a compound with already disclosed somewhere and they get a use patent but they can't necessarily get a patent on the compound themselves even if they're the one to come up with the best possible use of it they still don't get the compound it's already in the public possession but let's take the pharmaceutical case where we have the center structure and terror groups each one of which lists a few thousand choices by the time buyers are mad and we ha i'm going to sat  except that the disclosure didn't put the art the public in possession up my client's invention right because your client invention is the use of the thing it's not the thing itself the world i sextant to disclose what they are or what information is provided to the potluck depends more on the information provided to the public because it save information is there in short for then they are in that sequence the sequence was already now if i say before this reference it is word processing effort if i simply set maybe a fifteen guess i'm not understanding with argument that you're making i thought that i understood your case to be really a dispute with rents musin and some of our prior precedent that says her name moment purposes all you have to show is how to read you don't have to and you shouldn't be able to go running through all the long lists so there's your mention i found it when nothing about the way the priorities disclosed would make them come out disagree that it is that it is contrary to public policy to say that when in fact the way the nature of the player disclosure didn't actually give the public the benefit of that i'm confused as the employer got a body of precedent and we don't have the option of ignoring it and aren't precipitation case law themes to be crystal clear if the thing is disclosed and want to kill new york would know how to make it then it's the anticipation but it leaves attempting to make that somehow that just seems wrong that it's so easy but in fact it is and what it is easy that's just the nature of the art and what this means for the future is not some parade of horrible mean something specific substantial credible and used as it's used in the neighborhood for what twelve purposes means practical use you know as if you were a person working in art and you know how to take it and  police would argue is similar to the police would argue similar to this case where you just have this whole list of nucleic acids and nobody knows what you do with that and nobody knows how to choose from them we don't have that case where we have you're arguing i'm just trying to understand i'm just trying to clarify or to judge process that yes they have we believe that they use exists a practical utility exists in this case however we believe that under this court that in the wiggins court there was a failure to the patient purposes was it because the disclosure was insufficient or because it was an enabling because it said they weren't able to produce it well the way that this court characterize it do disclosure of it because it may mean that i would say i know but the we can see you look i'm with you i understand your pain but the weekend kate says explicitly i'm now quoting from the case  don't want it to target multiple proteins so you would if we were in an obvious regime we have numerous arguments to say you would pick the case if you get is stead of every possible one we can't doesn't give anything to the art i can write a computer program and a very few lines that would generate all possible fifteen years i think a lot of ember but i wouldn't print it out and put it on the internet it means that somebody who's opposed to the idea of patenting d n a takes a little more paper but no longer program to make sixteen seventeen eighteen and i think that you have to look at what price your art really puts into the possession of the public without you having to do any more experimentation with them going to be able to look