hear ours made with the court my name is joshua larson i'm here today representing the board believed that it would be obvious to combine basically any and all teachings from prior art references soley because they had an overlap in intended use or application and regardless of what the actually top about how they achieve that result no matter how different that was and how different the systems work were particularly in this case each of the board's obviousness rejections rely on a primary reference i refer to as hansen in the brief we ca possibly an overstatement of what the board was really doing or maybe you say all that was required under the board's logic was an overlap of i think you said intended use an application but this is the case that the t prior references and the patents all have a lot in common in terms of the components that go into the ultimate composition and that the departures are only with respect to a couple of the components that seems to me quite different from saying that if you have an intended use of one quite different set of components from another that  deciding whether it makes sense to look to the other references for guidance and and motivation to combine i believe it is important to look at the references you are and that's ignored in its decision is the very different chemistry set off in the two references and are claiming in each of these three we've got a different system going on a different type of reaction different chemistries in our claim in the first happening it's undisclosed and it would be present small amounts but they rejection was that it would be present well we disagree with that we decided to amend the claim just to put in these amounts to claim more specifically this is not we're not talking about trying to claim a side reaction we're claiming reference that specifically topped the amount of carbohydrate we now claim the seventy three that i'm six percent and it proposed that it would modify the ends of the allegedly inherent side reaction and instant to modify that based on the having a certain amount of carbohydrate is preferred do you is there anything in the record that you are have to say for why it's preferred or do you have a view on that your honor in the record there not anything in the record about why it's preferred and that's one of the issues that we believe also shows the obviousness combination here is improper because the p t o pointed to that statement about preferred more than ten as a reason why would you pick out that teacher is a binder system that involves the hydrating sugars as a binder just because a teaching us is preferred for one type of reference one type of chemistry is not does not mean that it would be for and this is why the word chemistry if i what's the motivation in the first place what's the motivation to take that teaching from mornington apply the chemistries are significantly different and again we're not talking about modifying the referent of reaction that handsome to explicitly described used they're both drugs they're both taken orally they both are used to treat addicts in many cases but just because those two drugs have a similar application does not make it obvious to pick and choose and teachings about one apply them to the other they're very different drugs in terms of the actual chemistry that makes them up what they're modes of action are in the human body and that's evidenced by the fact that humans do have people who are extremely allergic to one of the other that are said safe for them to take one the other and the two things are not the same just because there is for similar purposes just because we have two binders here that may be used to find same and actual differences and how those references work our show why the r is very different argument to the board yes your honor we did we specifically pointed out to the board that hansen only provided for black for carbohydrate percentages i q didn't make that not of the same detail that we have to remember we were advancing the same argument that hansen to teach is away from the combination because of its focus on limiting the amount of car or pottery that's present and so in  that sense you have he answered which teaches that it uses a limited amount of carbohydrate and the board's reasoning there p t o the mistake was you would take this reference over here teaching a different type chemistry worthington that has a high isn't that much of a difference no you're opposing counsel says that there are these are in two entirely different chemical reactions and you've just said they're not going to help us try to figure out different reactions really they argued before the board that the this handsome vines along eight materials like fibers and wordings in bind sand and that is why one wouldn't combine them but in terms of what was there in fact away there was some discussion of it is that sufficiently different so in that context yes there was in the context of into the hood of the carbohydrate level teaching away there was not a discussion not there would be sufficient alcohol at the available after the pre action enhanced into that was made but that there was not it's an argument that well this is and is entirely different chemical present in the claim so the it doesn't matter if there is some other reactions also happening as long as you have a reaction that produces melon wins also happening for the purposes of  heating it's what happens when you make bread it's what happens when you brown steak it's it's you know that seems like a very complicated thing but it's something that is well known and that for long periods of time if you and i mean we have carbohydrate everyday people no why it's preferred there's the government have a position on why it's preferred or is that in the record anywhere well and is that required the sort of three good question how can i just try to end with there is a requirement are we have one technique that's being used to improve one device or one product and that would be expected to use that in technique in a similar product unless it's beyond skill in the art there's no allegation here that i imputed somewhat to the carbohydrate range but beyond that i don't think it's required here where they go you have sort of like the two brake systems you have some whole bunch of well known options where  really do it one way or the other way and it doesn't seem to particularly matter too much which one you choose and maybe they don't have any advantages maybe there isn't well no advantage to using that low carbohydrate drug versus the slightly lower level of carbohydrate to one single said the man carbohydrates so they don't show anything about increasing levels of carbohydrate they also don't show anything about a higher level of carbohydrate they just have the one level of twenty five percent in certain respects stronger but even that is overstated because the the table shows that the binder with carbohydrates actually has a higher initial strength and a higher strength after after aging in the preferably five to forty percent of carbohydrates but there's it's not only there's nothing that discourages from using more or suggests that is in work what it workers is in what i would not have a desirable outcome so one of the discussion points that we talked about and my close encounters talk about was the similar components and the similar whether or not these references had some reactions that was something that we argued about below it was in the context of as a basis for its obviousness combination exam or sold statement was that the two references were used to find similar composite components and that was the same analysis relied on by the board they didn't rely on the alleged similarit we disagree completely with that alleged similarity but that wasn't the rationale used by the board and that can be the rationale of p t o users today to defend that decision when it wasn't even part of the decision finally  combination of these references they said well you just take worthington's carbohydrate percentage of piety and some but again we're talking about a undisclosed allegedly here outside reaction hansen and so i