have two argued cases today i counsel ready to proceed on the first one about the board being wrong about inheritance e but they have this alternative ground i guess that at least with some legal background like a ventus there would have been a motivation not believe that the examiner has established a basis for for suggesting that excuse me i'm lost my train of thought reduction than it did for p q but not the first point is that i don't believe that the examiner established motivation to purify certainly there's no prior art that the examiner cites for that proposition d at all so certainly sr there's nothing in sr to suggest that you should purify right today but then as as you point out for other purposes a quite long period elapses inherently has activity to my office so the fact that there was a concern that this peachy putin's time displayed activity tomatoes i don't think would have motivated it was there anything the prior article or any evidence of record here that indicated after what senior is like one hundred eighty three eighty three to two thousand and three i think your priority date or for something like that  that told skilled artisan is that f eight the might not have the mouth has problems that p q q did nothing in the record so am i correct that that share the same e c numbers necessarily share the same substrate specificity for purposes of this pos yes roger that's correct that there are impurities that could well have activity to do it was almost certainly does have some level of activity took tomatoes but certainly we don't think on this record there's a basis two thousand and nine that says from making ninety seven to two thousand and nine we've had was it thirteen or something reports of deaths from the q sensor base basically because of miss readings but i couldn't tell from that and you may know were those reports publicly known there's nothing in the record to suggest that they were publicly dr turner's declaration did so and it suggested that that was potentially dangerous so there was certainly able to work in one nine hundred ninety seven that this is a problem and it's potentially dangerous but as to the actual deaths we know that they first started the f d a first started receiving those deaths and then nine hundred ninety seven but we don't i don't there's nothing in the record indicate that those are actually let me quote failed to explain why a procedure would have expected the purified preparation of low activity against multiples but in the hearing i kidded conceded that it most there it is evidence that the material activity may not always be less than five percent and it seems to me to be reasonable for a person skilled to expect success given this hearing transcript concession combined with the sujit reference purification method result how is the fact achieving under five percent may not always may not always occur evidence of no expectation of success if you see i'm saying well i don't believe know that they should purify the composition to remove and there's nothing in the prior art that indicates that so if one even if i was going to sit down and purify  you know unless you're saying that one normally just routinely would purified and get all impurities out i don't think that you necessarily would purify in order to get low was had been terrifying it was being used in commercial products and clearly they would have done everything they could to try and remove any impurities from back under the hypothetical that you're then it seems to me that if you're going to say well it just would have been obvious to purify it there has to be something more than just the examiner saying everyone knows that you would want purified to get out the impurities when you have when the rich principle reference  does filing date seniors nine hundred eighty six or eighty three and i keep trying to keep this filing date there's a motivation to purify because we now know that there's patients taking drugs that results in multiples in their bloodstream and a reports of deaths starting in one thousand nine hundred seven in public but there is public data that was put forth for the long felt need that there was this risk to pick particular patients that were taking drugs that put multi state in their bloodstream so that's a port the motivation to purify away any more times activity i think event has an spectrum support a motivation to purify a mixture regardless of whether there's anything more explicit about it because we've had this known substance that the the crucial property here is not sensitivity to glucose but comparative twenty to one sensitivity of glucose to mouth us and that there just wasn't a reason to know there wasn't a reason to know but i guess that goes back to there wasn't a reason to know but there was a reason to be worried about multiples and there was a reason to know that those locals hydrolysis read like a very specifically on the event this case he places a fair bit of reliance on the sentence that says when you know that something has a particular property it's sort of presumed that you have a reason to purify but the particular property here is a relative one  don't remember that there is anything that tells us that we know that the world of public knowledge included knowledge of the relative twenty to one property of it of the f eighty that's true it to like either shows does i think tell me if i'm wrong not to include information about whether it's also reacting to an unfortunate degree with something of it or glucose that's true but i guess what the art didn't  forgive the expression soup yeah it includes this enzyme we say we don't think it matters very much how pure it is and you're taking from the disclosure testing if it's an inherent property for you can't make a paddle distinction between what you're claiming now what was in there prior art based on an inherent property even of that inherent property isn't known and here we have a disclosure of an the hydrogen is activity and that is not that is a reasonable basis to think that these two emissions either just the disclosure and enablement of using a purified and or seniors particular pure preparation inherently in these preparations so the board said there's no evidence of this contaminant and even if there was evidence of this contaminant in still then would inherently have this low activity tumultuous relative to lucas and so the only o doesn't have the ability to test prior compositions and compare them to a key does so the only thing the board that p t o can do is say we have substantially similar preparations they've both been classified as known h under sharing the current case it doesn't matter when you discover an inherent property if it's inherent then all done anticipation is are you making that as  out of the prior art as long as it's enabled so they're pretty if i'm a case where you have a one day a twenty four hour tramadol treatment and the prior art didn't actually show this particular twenty four hour treatment with tramadol but would have been unable because one of skill in the art could have done it one of the skill in the art could have purified it all these protein purification methods that are being used are well known ordinary methods and so therefore discussion that began to focus on the purification pair of issues one is motivation and the second is a basis for reasonable you expecting success that purifying f a p would be better than success of purifying it and it not having intrinsic activity it's not one hundred percent but it doesn't have to be hundred percent for is a reasonable expectation of success and the fact that activity of people and i mean are just tells us almost nothing about where or south of i like the way you think counsel not what you think but you think in paragraphs something about what might be a couple of different arguments that maybe i before the argument i had before today's argument i had then been joining forget about the preparation that senior actually did make or test a s a d d d age in pure form and as long as it disclosed it you know biosensor you are doing nothing but identifying a leader discovered inherent property namely a twenty twenty to one ratio of glucose to mouth toes reactivity tell me what your answer is to that well sr doesn't disclose using the enzyme it discloses using and in zone preparation and well i think i take it and maybe i misunderstood that at page two maybe nine this year and you know the were contained in whole microbes and i think the government was saying that discloses something that senior and his people never actually did but it discloses using a pure entirety i think what the purification they're talking about there is the purification that took place in their example which was an eight fold purification later on on  one state column to purify it and it increased the amount of g h by about eight fold it said that is it is still a very crude preparation it is somewhat purified and letting you run over ok and that but as we showed in our fair explained in our brief the preparation we've used is that has seven