stash one for five from palmetto pharmaceuticals throughout her throughout that janssen argument starting at twenty one running on for maybe ten pages in various iterations you make the arguments of the district court erred when you construed the disputed practicing claim one quote must intend to treat a subject which is at risk for cardiovascular disease and adverse events at two zero zero seven seven five in the joint proposed claim construction chart you acknowledged that the disputed limitations quote require an intent close quote when you objected to the special master's constructions at two one two seven eight you didn't dispute that claim one i mean i know you want to identify certain facts that are different from the facts here but there seems to be a certain legal principle at stake in janssen and i'm just trying to figure out what you think is the right articulation is the treating doctor yes they should have knowledge about michael jackson nitric oxide that's in our patents in the medical literature it doesn't doesn't mean it means that they shouldn't they don't have to be thinking about nitric oxide when they see a person is we have to start with that instead what the district court is for the vitamin patents a template laid it over our clients they try to look for things that were consistent with that but that interpretation or the risk of clinical that's that's what the treating doctor wants doing well your the your problem with that argument is that it doesn't comport with the disputed  don't they say a method for treating a subject that would benefit from increased microsoft's i reduction in a stitch you comprising administering to the subject in need of such treatment claim one teaches that the treatment should be the cardiovascular claim about taking some actions but taking your some actions also with while you're thinking something inside your head well you know it's not that uncommon to see magic things that are purposeful that require them to achieve a purpose and that's important particularly in this context really is that you could receive a purpose without knowing let me give you an example right my son had a rash on his face recently this is not a made up story here a rash on his face recently i took him medicine is great it doesn't or so he was a subject in need of an anti it's crazy and he had communicated that to me as a child or his doctor the doctor gave mr i just cleared up the rash it also happened to take care of his need patient it's because the claim itself requires the doctor to entertain the a fact that allows you to patent new uses that's why this language is quite common in method of three pads because what it says is it's not that people haven't received a drug before but now the drug is being used for a new purpose and i think jensen in rapoport recognizes that that's a very important aspect of method of treatment it's not simply you know requiring and so we're dealing here with what intent and philip says look at the language of the client and the specifications to get the lens or kind here is not reduction of cardiovascular they're very specific words and it's a subject of you know treating people with cardiovascular disease and my potential problems right that's next actually very broad in that regard it says the only example of course is in vitro there's no treatment of anybody in the pa column for beginning and i'm sixty stimulation not in the presence of excess l argentina or other substrate precursor of native and no may be used to prevent treat arrest or me great any disease or condition which is positively diseases so they're saying look anything and make they repeat this doesn't or anything that would be improved by increased and out that can be done by following our methods increasing and no they were not focused on any particular disease i will increase and all production in patients and i think that's a good thing and they can be all sorts of benefits from that that's what they're describing the patent you know the title the patent it's not production cardiovascular it's its method of stimulating nitric oxide  but there throughout the specification what they're saying is i discovered a way of using a stat for the purpose of increasing you know production in tissue do that and not the medical benefits and that's what they claim but it requires a doctor to intend to do that appeal which is a conditional cross appeal which is only if the construction is reversed if the point is it's that construction that goes to the original plan and this is a pattern that went to reexamine after our use was approved read as administering irrespective of the subject plus for all we don't consider the subject's cholesterol level when you choose to administer the stat in fact that limitations are sit side by side in a ritual claim and you both for purposes i think you could use a boost in an hour and i'd like to bring your cholesterol down even further that was outside the original plan during reexamined they took that limitation out so that it was entirely just about increasing and on we think they did so benefit that's treating clinical advance preventing reducing the risk of clinical what our invention was ultimately to boil it down was we're treating a new population of people who never treated before they were at risk for cardiovascular events that risk could be ascertained by things like hypertension a family history of heart disease except these poc these patients were not being treated because they were