you state on page forty two of the blue grade that pseudo showed in the eleven fold increase in particular contamination levels associated with closures treated with silicone to those associated with those years and created it table agreed with our analysis that was a permanent leader number i think the reference is a bit unclear as to whether that is or not but again we're not contesting the board's finding on that particular point but again your honor the about these calculations dr davis is analysis of the analysis of the particular data resulting from the immersion of ten stoppers into a container of water did not account for the fact that the number of and in practice you would never have a situation where the entire record stopper is emerged inside the vial right i guess we're not we're not contesting your are the numbers as found on the board packaging that would have increased the safety risk with this product which was again an emotion product right that already had a number of a lot of goals and protocols and all diprivan is an old product twelve one of the commission references it had its own limits on the number size distribution of particles in particular foil droplets that work some people because again it posed a risk to patien if you had an a a a too large and too many of these particles in the formulation because it could potentially cause ambuhl isn't which again was something that was known in the ark is there a reason why the now the board essentially was on the unable to determine based on the teaching of the various references that we point out as to whether or not a person of skill could have expected a combination combining the prior elements w actually meet these where that's where the standards of you look at page one thousand of the board's decision it basically says that they cannot discern from the prior teaching whether or not the product of this combination would have met those one was filtration that again was was not appropriate for this product you're hedging your hat on this because you have nothing else to laugh i'm sorry i said you are hanging your hat on this t i will i will concede that point but the the issue of names your honor or whether or not a person of skill would adopt packaging that was was known to increase the particulate load with a product that was seven line thirty one if i can just read the sentence the present inventions composition is a sterile aqueous formulation and is prepared by standard manufacturing techniques using for example as septic manufacture sterile filtration or terminal sterile sterilization by auto plant so to me it just looks plain that argument sure and there's only a factual issue as to whether one of whatever skill they are would have combined the teachings of the prior art in order to achieve the claimed invention with the reasonable expectation of success the standard of review of that is that a reasonable expectation of success is also a question of fact what a reference teaches and whether it teaches toward or away from the claimed invention are questions of fact finding is supported by substantial evidence or efficiency during manufacture would have had a reason to silicon eyes the broom a beautiful rubber closure of the prevent with a reasonable expectation of success the patent on it presented no meaningful expert testimony and it was an undisputed admission that you would have had to have changed several ization methods i didn't make any such admission that was one argument of several in fact most of the replies several pages of my reply is directed toward any sterilization method that could be used including autoclave and it was directed to the mistake after mistake after mistake  data so there was no admission that you would have to change their realization methods instead i argued for several pages that the particulate contamination was well below the limits of the board did not consider the arguments made by the winner is just false there are numerous locations throughout the final written decision where the board did consider all of the arguments that were made by the it rejected them because they were based upon improper analysis or pseudo as you indicated before it's off by a factor of three hundred of and as you also contamination level exceeds it but that's not the case when you look at the analysis you find it's all floors they didn't even read the right number from pseudo and then the analysis itself was offloaded in taken the consideration that if you have ten of them it's going to have ten surface area that's been coated with silicone and you're going to get a higher number of particular it just doesn't transfer it to a stop or that's put in a while that was that analysis was that the patent owners argument that the board did not consider their arguments as false because if you look at the final written decision if you look at the reply that i wrote below we did contest their arguments the boy did i did fully consider them f only other point i'm trying to make is that that i will make before i sit down is that the levels of particulate contamination that's not was cited in the claim and also if you look at the soft copy of the patent and do a search for a particular three twenty four of his declaration as well as the admissions are made by counsel below at the oral argument it's clear that based on the teaching of references like with each one one zero one one month nine one nine and the normal reference that and the but the follow up question was do do you agree that you need to show that you need to change the sterilization method to substantiate a funding of obviousness based on this on this combination and he said yes  but the point is that if you have to change from autoclave being an efficient less expensive means to a more expensive more complicated more cumbersome means of sterilization like a man factoring it