those cases very strongly that you look at what the claim is directed to the claim was directed to a method of treatment method of treatments are not natural the compound that's being  is not natural and therefore step one of the one on one analysis should allow this claim to go forward as patent eligible should the court consider the claim as a whole may be patent in the wood to bowl but is there something inventive and rick's your way there's something that's not routine or conventional that's a question of fact that would have to go back to the district co court doesn't have any questions on that issue i will go to the nd part and that relates to the trial decision which has the decision of obviousness type  treatment using oral tablets and to consider this issue i'd like the court to consider the following facts that are not in dispute those facts included that there are many factors that affect a dose besides the i c fifty nine and that is in the appendix at one of three and there is a listing of all the factors and all the experts agree with moved to what i think is the court's alternative finding on obviousness that even even if i agreed with you on gallup derma used to will have to demonstrate that the court was wrong in finding that there was a reasonable expectation of success in using this drug at two point five and five milligrams this apartment presumption because you know even if i agree with you on the presumption you can still lose this case yes you're on the stand and that's what i'd like you to address be happy to address that there's a fundamental disconnect in the district court decision which relates to both fact home when you look at the evidence that is in the record dr greste the expert who testified in this routine experimentation talked about doing a dose ranging that's fine but what the district court did not take into account but mind we may would do i'm sorry when you say that spine you mean they would do it no i think that's what they said would they do with that no not in this instance and for several reasons what the district court did not credit and this is very important is that all the experts stated that to do the dosing study you must st do animal studies the o'grady reference and this is the state of the art reference dr graf said state of the art is the gr what dose ranging study should be so you would never do ever dose ranging study based on a disclosure in a patent you might do animal taste testing based on that but you would not remember the district court said i'm finding it routine because the f d a says you do does ranging studies the f d a says st you do animal tests and here we have evidence of what happens when you do animal testing when you do animal testing and this is in the opinion where the district court right that's what they're in their scientists actually do it there they did the correct studies in accordance with the then one must yet and the only evidence was in the record what one would get with the st dosing studies the animal studies which are required by the f d a is fifty dollars to two hundred interesting really that range is consistent with the examples for oral tablets did you i mean there are so many issues in th briefing and it's complex technology so maybe i missed it but all of this stuff that you're saying right now about these animal studies i don't remember did you argue this we did argue that the whole list that's in that the whole li basis i guess for me what it came down to was the district court found that thirteen term a teachin someone would arise at this and you're talking about dosing ranges from say one dollar to one hundred milligrams and it seems reasonable i don't i don't understand the start from the top and double down stuff that seemed confusing to me a little bit but what i do understand is the notion which seems clearly articulated that you there are lots of good reasons like side effect profiles and things to start at the low end and then work your way up from there and to be honest two dollars doesn't seem very far from one to me so i have to review this under a clear error standard because these are all fact findings we're talking about and there's expert testimony that says you would start at the low end for side effect reasons and that you know what just makes good common sense to me and i'm not a skilled artisan but you know when i take medicine i don't start at the highest dose usually so it seems like it makes sense and it's all in the record and supported by expert testimony and so i guess under the standard overview i really don't understand your argument about animal studies but i don't think i'm likely to try to figure it out since it's not your blue brief are with it in the preferred range that one dollar to one hundred dollars range or on are the examples on oral tablets two of them are in the preferred range the rd is outside the preferred range there fore for the preferred compounds the examples are seventy five and one hundred the district recognize those examples were important and to get around them he developed this concept he called it doubling in reverse it's just abiding by two there's no evidence in the record to support that that that that doesn't really exist so you look at that you have to say all right now i have a real example real examples for oral tablets it says seventy five and one hundred and then you need to look at unexpected results and things of that nature and you look at the fact that when the inventors themselves did that animal testing it was consistent with the examples so this is a very unexpected result furthermore what we need to consider is that when we consider this issue of dosing we have no evidence that you will get to two dollars the only evidence stated was you would get to one you would get to two you get to four you get to eight there's no testimony that says then you would go backwards and look at two dollars and then you would with a little bit for there now and i think we can see on the obvious since type double patterning and the obviousness issues these are really coming down to factual issues as opposed to legal error and i'll be happy to go into them more but i want your specific factual that's there as well that disclosure is their right i get all that and i said your friend said it starts off in these higher ranges i just want to know it seems to me to just work or relied on a specific factual finding that it would be obvious to start at the lower and middle school and the op what's the actual evidence supporting the actual fighting well i mean there was there was expert testimony on on both sides that even said that you would be starting from a low dose in an typical dose ranging study evidence in the record as to why one would go from the low dose and go up and i believe even judge more or even from a commonsense perspective judge moore commented that it is you think you just basically told judge hughes in response with a question that there's a lot of evidence in the record  dose may result in a lower risk of drug drug interaction and number for low low dose has lower side effects and be more precise in your argument give us reasons and facts and cite the record don't just answer his question by telling him well there's lots of fully any rationale or pointing to any i understand or appreciate that just more and thank you for bringing up those four points those four points are actually testified to by one of the name inventors and so to to judge worst point yes even even their own inventor stated that their own slides stated that thirty six dollars testimony stated that so there is ample evidence in the record to suggest or not to suggest but actually state that you would start from the low correct there be there be other types of argument correct but going back to them the one hundred and one dollars and i'm fully cognizant of how verse the special is on those issues mayo and now this court's more recent decision in i quart properly concluded that the one hundred and fifty six patent was ineligible because it failed the two step mayo test in so far as the claimed advance was nothing more than a natural law the natural law actually being the recognition that lynagh lived in is preferentially excluded by the liver that's an inherent property and with respect to the nd step the district court also properly found that the other elements of the claim individually or in the ordered combination did not in any way create an inventive concept that can rescue eligibility oh well there certainly are no black letter roles as i wrote recently a descent we've never held a diagnostic claim eligible since mayo likewise since then it was decided we'd help number of treatment plans eligible and i've never seen us hold a method of treatment plan you know which of all so while i'm not suggesting th there it was an alkaline actual dosage regimen there had to be a gino to pick identification of a particular type of marker that would indicate whether or not that some ject is a metabolize or of a certain and based on that based on that information which arguably is a natural law but based on that information east pacific dosage regimen was actually constructed that of goes out a very specific does it work when the is that if you have this marker get one dose if you don't have this marker get the other posts but that is that is a specific go so isn't this i mean certainly this is a little d bit more general but isn't this a similarly if you suffer from a number d of conditions and dose as the patient for normal renal failure so actually it tells you exactly what those but there's no articulation st of all of what that dosage is and to your point to your question just more if we read that to its logical conclusion all it's saying is you doing what dosage again i these are incredibly broad patterns i don't understand how they will stand up under any kind of obvious it as analysis at all of if we have far on the other two but i don't see how you in allison mayo is look at what the patent is directed to if the claim is directed to administration of a drug we have almost universally held post mayo and vanda and other cases that regimen all the claimed is a method of treating a condition using a drug a natural law is a method of treating with a drug a natural lot no no you're but doesn't that and like this but the reason the body reacts in certain ways to certain drugs would serve the conditions is all based in some sense on natural laws but the distinction here is not claiming that natural  and you know the whole idea it is a method of treatment claims it is a method of treatment claim but eat the claimed and vance is nothing but a recognition of the fact that  excrete it through the liver which is what your support for the notion d that the claimed and that's as opposed to reading the patent as a whole is the proper test to determine what the patent is direct to mayo itself says your honor that we that this court is charged with determining what the claimed in advance is doesn't say that's what the patent is directed to an it to me in any case that says the initial step was analysis at what the claim is directed to only the arrows and on the advance over the higher are not the claim as no one seems to me  i think i think then you are a little bit misunderstand what i'm saying i am not disputing the fact that the claim ultimately is going to be looked at as a whole but to determine pattern eligibility for a claim like this we do have to look at is literally what this claim is sane because limited goes to the liver someone who has the mino impairment some type of renal problem of course you can give it to them without worrying about what the dose will be because primarily drugs get excreta through through two ways the kidney in the liver and so if this goes through the liver then it won't matter if that patient has renal failure or renal impairment it can you can give it to that person and you don't have to worry about the difference that's that but the natural law itself is that it is something that is inherent in linux up to which is that linux mint an inherently goes through the liver that's the natural law so i understand your point and it's well taken that you don't just parse out each individual element but even taken together the only advance you're talking about is the excretion through the liver and then as a result of that the doctor can just give the same type of dosage or do whatever it was doing before to this person with a kidney impairment and why i even mentioned on preemption very briefly is the fact warrender has the exact same type of pattern that goes out to two thousand and twenty three now imagine that panics fires in a doctor is administer couple patterning arguments you can make on this patent so no we don't need to turn one a one into a cure all and deviate from our existing precedent because you want to suggest there might be a long term problems  overseas other defenses don't limit yourself to just one hundred and eleven is certainly not a panacea judge moore but eleven does have a separate the keeping function as as this court has recognized then one of two and one to three and such there can certainly i mistakenly thought want to one is are these claims directed to an abstract idea or a natural law and if they had more like us to say should it get a pet in the st place in your giving us hypos and scenarios of how awful that would be because they get to extend their patent protection because they already had patent protection gosh if only there was a doctrine that could address i i take your point judge moore but if it is directed to a natural law then it's not eligible and i think that was my point in here no matter what the only discovery is that the only discoveries that lived in goes through the liver and that's why does fail step one and if we were to quickly move to step two just just for that purpose every other step was conventional lowest low dosage that was years later after the fact what we have here is the district court recognise that you had to consider the examples and it that is his finding that you have to consider them but he then determined that you would go backwards from that which is without any evidence and in the record would you then have to understand gree that if you did i b it would be lower and when you look at the examples for i v the amp you will it says ten milligrams preferred thirty less preferred so when you look at the examples when you read a reference for all it teaches which is required when you read a repertoire all it teaches and how do you comport i mean the district court  reason someone with started a low dose and he cited portions of expert testimony and i've got it right in front of me where the expert says or the question is you know do you recall what dose that was one hundred dollars milligrams it was at the st so she tried in humans no you would  start with the dose you may believe would be sub there putin why would you do that you go through and tells all the reasons you started subtherapeutic and work your way up from there so you want to start at the examples but the district court said the risk reasons to start at the lowest end that's what he held as a fact finding and he cited this exact trial transcript where this expert said you wouldn't even start at the example you would start some but there peter below the example i work your way up from there that's exactly the point the b animal studies and the judge did point to that it's in the in his opinion that this is what b i did and when they did the animal studies they said fifty to two hundred then they go to the human now they're saying we're doing five as it's not going to work five is not going to work we're doing fifty we're doing one hundred we're doing two hundred and unexpectedly completely contrary to what all of their richard search said they got to