d and that because of that this would result in the clones invention i guess the idea that you would use them without and somehow presume that there would be an activation of the most do  understand that to be whether it's right or wrong i just want to st make sure i understand what your understanding is of the words hold me here on how these two prior references combined to somehow teach this claim even though all of those results were generated using a photo sensitizer so in effect they used the method for one reference applied to the st the bacteria and the nd reference and then invalidating the claims they did so in a way that eliminated all of the photo synthesizers from ashkenazis and that's it but they still relied on ashkenazis reported results even though those results were only achieve using a photo sensitizer they had no evidence and certainly not substantial evidence to support that finding and neither of the references the board relied on rachel to inactivate any bacteria without using a sudden sensitizer so there's no evidence anywhere in the record of the bacteria in  being activated without using a photo sensitizer and if you look at the case from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill the two references actually would reinforce the defense and sometimes there is needed for an activation so you've got the st reference ashkenaz cells confirms that it's not simply a matter of having some amount of pork rinds present in the bacteria because that bacteria showed no response when they tested it and again if you can hear me i'm looking at bacteria is demonstrably false because and in this and there is you've got this four friends in the bacteria and they exposed it to light and nothing happens one trying to get that sir is doesn't it's it's it's incorrect to the extent that it's not simply a matter of having some poor friends in the bacteria and then knowing that those will lead to an activation because it's and shows us that it's not that simple and this is it will be inactivated by life but i'm missing you had no inactivation at all and probably host i just want to ask you one thing which is my understanding is that this thing does not meet the claim limitations including you doses ask analogy would have been say no bacteria would have been killed so there is clear testimony from our experts on that point and i think when you when you look back at the two references and you look at it from the perspective of evidence of martha ever being an activator without using insiders with ties and there was simply no evidence and certainly not substantial evidence for the board rely on to support its findings if there are no further questions all reserve the the board determined that any conclusions to be drawn from those results because should be drawn from those results should be limited and the limited data from those trials did not outweigh the other evidence that was presented that supported  so i can point you to of the things that i would want to point out about the need for ninety nine study is that the relevance of the results that it should be limited in this case because they actually use the broader wavelength range that was what was used in the they need some study maybe some ninety nine to use a wavelength range of four hundred and two thousand four hundred and fifty animators instead of the more narrow four hundred and seven to four hundred and twenty animators that was used in the side something can i ask you about something else and your brief in talking patent makes certain admissions about the state of the art for what would be expected you don't think this is time do you think this is hindsight in your brief or not no absolutely not and why not do you think it's perfectly proper for me to rely on this to rely on the patent obtain that very same result even though there's two references from this and that would suggest where they try to  the purpose of that not a trial needs on was to determine whether x or fire was outside of the bacterial cells contributed to the photon activation and the board also correctly recognise that any conclusions from this one trial should be increased can increase the level of an activation  when exposed to light you say it results in an activation i'm simply asking you to show me on the record somebody who agrees with you on that point so i think our argument your honor is that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success that i'm not asking you i'm not asking you that question i'm asking you are you are you admitting that there is no evidence in the record that shows i'm sure that there is an activation when you radical correct your honor especially given the fact that the board correctly recognized that the amount of corporate in the bacteria is not important in the context of these claims because the claims don't require any amount of portland think with my remaining time i like to point out that what this appeal really boils down to is what was the reasonably expected result of exposing mars to blue light in the absence of a photo sensitizer using parameters that were known to have an impact on the level of an activation and knowing that produces per firings and one particular point i want to make is just it's important to appreciate how low the bar is here for an expectation of success in the properly recognized an expectation of success must be framed in the context of the researchers were concerned with the eradication of their respective bacteria in other words the total destruction of the bacteria but here the claims not require total eradication and hence definition of an activation is satisfied by much more modest results which which frame the expectation that needs to be shown for obviousness and so i think on the basis of this evidence the board correctly found that one of ordinary skill would have would have had a reasonable expectation of success in meeting thank you your honor i would start just by saying that this is shows the opposite of what clearview counsels suggest you so the notion that the presence of some pork barreling sufficient to cause an activation is  and the answer that question is no an ashkenazi and in the midst of one thing on paper every single example of the bacteria responded to light even at the lowest dose so there's there's absolutely no meter squared you get some degree of an activation so the references to a person of ordinary skill would have only reinforce that you need poor friends for activation and for that serial like most of the you need to photos sensitized to generate those porcelains that's the that's the clear taking the person ordering skill would have gotten from the references at the time of the invention myths and shows the opposite of what clearview is arguing and again they didn't cite any evidence in their