having a lot of a little problem here we've had other cases like out of pheno that's seeing to it just otherwise and in this case we're not if we were just talking about we want to raise this one range and that was that then i think i might agree that there are a finite number of ways you can go within that range but it seems to me the six the patent disclosure has numerous ranges and has numerous v so we are talking into the thousands or millions of potential variations so it seems to me not to be a good fit with the cases that have been willing to accommodate that so  like or the price hike or and was at the time one of if not the most successful combination oral contraceptives ever a person of ordinary skill in the art is aware that a person  information about a low dose of twenty micrograms there was never in the history of oral contraceptives as far as i know and certainly in the us a product would contain twenty five micrograms testimony from and yet this was not regarded including dr dhar name of the oracle experts was that he didn't know what it's about and the inside testimony from oracle which is under  away with the the problems associated with it the concern was that it was a problem or a breakthrough bre leaving it when you decrease the estrogen level that creates the other concerns right there was a concern then decide not to make a product work of vast majority of women are going to benefit by that lower amount and then the motivation is clear in the record the f d a said move down her bedtime of the prior thought that if you if cause additional bleeding it's going to affect all women well this is also the case that the patent says the purpose which contains the wide range says the purpose is to lower t five because there was no product at twenty that also coupled with the issue of where were it is the unexpected results from the standpoint of how do you judge unexpected results and this board is found that unexpected results in the only be you in terms of a difference from what was expected and there is nothing in the record that tells you what to expect if you were going to move to a twenty five that there's a discussion as good threshold effect where is there any group is aware that threshold actually is is was there some level of potential concern some concern but with the expectation that you're going to have once you're reduced from thirty five to twenty you know i don't know because there's no data on and with out proof of the expectation it's to be shown to be unexpected then when you move from thirty five to twenty five there cannot be a showing  unexpected results on the topic with the expected results there are probably ten different issues that we have with the unexpected results and let me just start with the fact that there was no original expectation approach from the same point with no difference with respect to the breakthrough bleeding much of the head showing there is a decision that was recently issue there are men at the district court level that actually says all that how can there be a share was an expected result in this case there's no showing that would allow the marketing of the product with that argument that there was no change in the in the cycle control the fact is that your point we asserted at the trial judge kessler many factual findings and this court although obviously this is ultimately questionable has said repeatedly that everything from what the prior art disclosed the motivation to make the invention to reasonable sufficiently serious is probably not for the woman what will happen is she will cease taking the or contraceptive and thereby become pregnant leading to a whole host of  is the side effect of psycho control and that was recognized by the patent office because indeed the patent was allowed by showing the unexpected results in terms of the cycle in front and in terms of whether or not these results agreed with that proposition moreover there was a general teaching in the art at that time by many references seven references aside it was understood by all skilled ar as you would you had increase and the loop in argument ignores all of those elements of the path because they can help and they have no answer and they want you to focus on testing only what words of her teach if you that that's exactly what we have and the proof is in the marketplace dr sarah her first testified as their expert that oh that would have been no expectation there was nothing out there then on cross examination i asked her about her service to park to thirty five whatever is in the marketplace today so when she said she didn't see a difference clinically between for the price like one or the price like in mono it's because she doesn't see a difference between any of them so there's no unexpected result here and that's where the that you don't find a million possibilities what you find is one clear teaching and example for only nine that there's a really good product out there it's called worth a try cycli