thank you your honor says the pleasure to be before you this morning this is rather simple straightforward case at the very beginning i'd like to emphasize that when i speak about thing goalmouth throughout this argument i'm referring to the zero point five milligram dose because that's the dose entirely correct correct i am indeed your honor are i'm focusing just on the claims of the four if i hadn't so there's one anticipation issue before the court we removed the obviousness rejections to make this is clear in a simple as possible so there's three independent claims are a and all three of those independent claims have this negative limitation and should the court what the argument is today is should the four of the sorry four or five  to have them look at whether there is little description support when somebody is claiming priority one earlier absolutely so that's not a question of her description it's a question of priority and title that's correct  the fact that at no point in time with this negative limitation that's correct well until it was introduced into the claims in the amendment in this particular patent that was filed in two thousand and fourteen so you could be considered a c i and there is nothing in the specification that alludes to suggests mentions remotely loading dose is never mentioned in this patent about the testimony yes birth he said really clear try to remedy that to look at it they tried to look at that specification they have two experts that are provided testimony but frankly you could have as many experts as you want that say what a poser would glean from the specification for expertness to me that's correct i don't think expert testimony was effective in this case because there wasn't language in the patent specification for them to assist us understanding how a poser would have read it spend much time on to the extent it's not impermissible in broadening they back right into the very same prior art they were trying to avoid so that is indeed our position and i mean i know that the office hasn't think is broadening and just walks right back into the same prior art we also have a standing issue before us that we don't think you necessarily need to address because this standing issues only directed two argentum after texas standing his  test for sufficient written description is whether the disclosure of an application reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the invention as of the filing date but this is a claim limitation it isn't f that the test is how a person of skill would perceive the description that's offered by the application itself in view of the state of the art and we have undisputed evidence follow from two experts on apple east side that's actually in harmony with dr geiser appellants expert at the state of the art as well as the application teaches that no loading dose would be the message to the person of skill there are you know my colleague talked about there being no hook in the specification that's not everything that was just argued and i disagree there are many hooks in the specification for example the word daily daily dosing regimen is one of the key aspects of the invention here and a person of skill in this art would immediately recognize that that would exclude a loading dose there specific evidence even using the word exclude from d that exact point as well as dr just go so that's one hope another hook is the indication here are m s multiple sclerosis that's not the only indication in the art that fingall limit was used for a single image was used in transplant and indeed causes that adverse effect just as in san terrorists there were adverse effects from that compound it would be known to a person and there's testimony and undisputed subs way beyond substantial evidence below that that would be known this is a case that's decided on its own facts and it does not set out a higher standard nike and in feet explicitly say so written description is determined in a case by case application by application way and negative limitations are no different sent terrorist merely identifies one way or negative limitations can be supported and appellants briefs quote pieces of sand terrace and the sentence your honor just quoted but link those pieces together with imperative language like must and require but no such commandments are evident in sam terrace and nike and in feet echo that that requirement isn't a requirement that the well even if the law required a reason to exclude which we believe it does not the board actually did analyze this question below indeed the word exclude is used by dr steinman several times for example at eighty th because she no your honor our position is that the reason to exclude is assessed by looking at how a person of skill perceives the application of disclosure is an immediate understanding just as one would read the words on the page but because of their background they have the benefit of the backdrop of the state of the art in their mind and they read it and it's their perception that is the and the court below made a decision based on a reason to exclude and therefore the federal circuit addressed that direct question and that is why the same terrorist case is written in terms of a reason to  substantial evidence and you've pointed us to the testimony of your experts that indicate when the word daily dosage is used what that means but the board cited dr just go and his so so is it your view that because of all those i guess i'm just not following exactly what you're arguing explain it sure your honor our argument is that the well settled test for written description as set out by ariad is from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art and below we have all three experts experts from both sides in  harmony showing that a person of skill would understand for several reasons in reading the specification that there should be no loading dose that loading dose should be excluded one reason is there were specific complete dosing regimen provided for in the application it's the heart of the invention the point five milligram dosing regimen and they would take from that that there should be no loading dose they would also know from the art because they're a person of scale that brady cardio was a risk tara's argument about whether there has to be a reason to exclude it mentioned in this vacuum you're saying another doesn't have to be that in centaurus they said when there is a reason to exclude mention that's good enough but they didn't say there always has to be and i understand your point on that but but the other point is there has to be some hook in the specification there has to be something in this that that would lead to skilled arbus and to understand that this excludes a loading dose and i don't examples in the specification one is a human example of dosing where and where did the experts point to the spec and which portions of the spec in particular do you think they're relying on at eight hundred and thirty to sixty nine dr steinman says the dosing schedule testimony that relates to two medical opinion rather than a cotton cloth question whether the claim limitation is in a particular application that's a different  therefore their understanding of what the specification is telling them is really the evidence the facts upon which the legal determination will be made and here all three medical doctors are seeing the same facts number clear that there does not to be does not need to be literal in hoc for support for a limitation in a claim and i also believe that here nike and in fee both make clear that the standard is the area standard and the area standard takes into account the person of skills for fact of in this case there's no dispute about the person of skills perspective it is that that this view is there's no dispute that these people understand daily dose to need a daily dose and not necessarily to include a low low dose in fact at the end of one of the four which you pointed me to his conclusion is a person of skill would need readers would read neither to call for a loading those but there's a difference between whether the word of daily dose implies the existence of a loading goes and whether daily dose excludes the possibility of a loading dose in addition and that's a really big difference well there was there was there is a difference and a daily dose to the person of skill means that you're giving point five daily instead it doesn't mean you're not giving anything up i think in this playing with the testimony doesn't seem to say to me what the testimony says when they say daily dose this is how i understand it but that doesn't mean the person is not taking anything out i believe dr just go said a person of skill would know not to add in any other features to the prescribe dosing regimen which he didn't like th anticipation what happens well if the panel is of that few then there should be a remain and we haven't a motion to amend that should be addressed below by the board but there was no you didn't question whether kappos isn't it has a patient you seem to have conceded it earlier the board said you did you disagree with that i believe that the claims in the motion to amend were not something that was assessed by the board and that answer just or is correct question directly not not with regard to the amended claims the board found two places both the institution decision in the final decision that you did not dispute we would need to you know focus on other aspects so this is so what you think because you amended but i guess my problem is that your amended claim is not substantially different from the exact same argument you're making on appeal all you did was take out the negative limitation but hadn't consisting of which actually never is the claim even further it narrows the claim in exactly this way the same way which isn't supported so if i conclude you don't have support for narrowing titration is also excluded in the amended claim yes but if you don't have support for one of the things you're trying to exclude it doesn't matter that you're limiting it even more right yeah but our view is that we do have support  be the recitation of daily and but yes but i'm saying if we don't agree with you on that if we don't agree with you on that it's hard for me to understand how there's any daylight between that and our amended claim what there would this right that's correct but that only relates to the very last clause of that daily dosing regimen of the claim you still have the comprising language much earlier in the claim the linking language that left a lot open in our brief our final our corrected final brief we did put a hypothetical at frame seven there where we put in two different dosage regimens we hypothetically added another one because the comprising linking language off affords the opportunity of even claim so it's always been very open because the comprising language that can always be additional steps in the method of treatment claims and that comprising language was not changed it didn't become consisting of consisting of only related to the very end of the the very bottom part that related to the daily dose of zero five milligram it wasn't the main linking phrase that was converted from