Legal Case Summary

Good morning. It's our pleasure to welcome Judge James Robertson, from the United States District Department of District of Columbia, sitting with us by his name, Chief Justice, and we appreciate his assistance. The first case is going to have that as Farm Mummy Hooper, 1061530155. Good morning, Your Honor. May I please the Court? The bulk of the district court's back findings below were correct, and the bill does not challenge a lot of appeal. But there were critical judges in the district court's legal analysis for it by the strike, and I was addressed three errors in particular this morning. First, the district court brought me presumed that the sharing of prior heart had to say should separate isoners, rather than can separate or may isolate isoners in order for looping to prove invalididate by clear convincing evidence. Second, the district court ignored this court's all elements rule in the context of its equivalent analysis. Rather than to analyze what looping's delivered edition of prior isoners to its product was the equivalent of a claim that required them to be removed. The district court's analysis turned on whether looping's ANDA product was very beautifully equivalent to a commercial body that was error. Here, the case is procedurally positioned so that the court can enter some rejection of non-infringement in a paper looping. Looping some rejection of motion below presented unributted expert testimony that the amount of other isoners of looping's product were large and substantial. We've been also presented unributted test data in a form of TLC testing but demonstrated that the amount of other isoners of its products could be tested and detected by the very test that events has hit our line on before the PTO to support its substantial agreement or isoners claim on it to satisfy the written description requirement. Third, the 722-10t violates 35 USC section one title. The district court found that the specification never defines the phrase substantial agreement of other isoners, never describes what substantial agreement of other isoners is, and the specification never even characterizes as the invention that ran up throughout substantial agreement of other isoners is what the inventors meant to claim. Since substantial agreement of other isoners is the only claim element that has been alleged to differentiate the 17th-tene claim from the sharing of prior heart

. Those deficiencies in the specification are fatal under this court's case law such as Seattle, Oxford, Westborough, and Credit, Quaywell, the ITC, and Purdue Farmer. If I may have left to start with the obviousness analysis, because here the district court clearly found it to be critical that the sharing part of our only thought of personal ordinary skill they are but the disclosed rare-prone isoners could be isolated or should be separated, or may be separated as opposed to should be separated. But that was error and that error is readily correctable here. In Ray Adams' 275F-2952, CCPA 1960, never required so stringent as standard as should be separated. In Adams' senate, the pending plans were directed to an isomer that was substantially separated from its companionizer. The analysis that the court followed there was first with the person's skill and the understanding. Let me just ask you, if you have any other questions, do you think that KSR is bringing forward case effects on other human beings? I'd love if it would KSR instructs, and I think that the KSR case tells us, is that you shouldn't have an extremely rigid test for demonstrating obviousness. And here I think that trying to draw a distinction between should separate versus can be isolated or maybe separated, that that's really too stringent of a test. What the Supreme Court made clear in KSR is that the person, is it the critical part of the analysis? Is there something that would prompt the person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claim in the mentioned? Here, when the very prior word reference discloses this all-assurant or curl isomer and tells you, not once but twice within the specification that the S islers and these other islers should be separated from one another or maybe isolated from one another. And when you look at the actual specification itself, and everywhere in the specification is talking about preferences for the S isomer. When you take that, and then we couple it with the District Court's other fact findings that found, for example, what the college chromatography separation technique that the one that is disclosed and shared in the prior word reference is the same one that was used in the 722 pattern, that this is something that persons of ordinary skill in the art who know how to use to separate isomers that is considered to be a routine technique that can be used to separate isomers. And the District Court also finds that the level of ordinary skill in the art is high, you know, that in and of itself, the directs of the appropriate readiness and obvious, particularly when the District Court found that there were no secondary considerations that were demonstrated in the Aralmias S. The District Court here explained to me place the great deal of emphasis on motivation or black theorem. And that sense perhaps ASR does change the lens view. Right

. Well, I think even in the pre-KSI landscape, you know, the test of this court was never a motivation that was, you know, you must be able to get this product, or there must be an exclusive instruction that you will go get this product. And of course, the press went up, you know, it was then that there needs to be some reason, some suggestion or motivation in the mind. And here, the Sharon Prior Artcrafts is by saying these isoers can be isolated and it may be separated. That's all the suggestion that you should need. And that's why, you know, when it gets to the atoms and shapes that came up in the 1960s, that will lie out of a reference that was back in 1949 that said the person of ordinary skill in the art in this field is going to understand once they are aware that the race may exist, that separation of these isoers is potentially possible. Now, as I understand it, the prosecution in this case was rather lengthy and at one point, the claims were amended in this limitation focusing on the substation of three other isomers and that soonly did the trick of convincing the examiner to allow this. But what was about the purer that rendered these claims abnormal? If the Prior Art shows a compounding, a compounding mixed with other compounds is certainly a claim to this compound in a more pure form, as it is, certainly result in patent. Will it absence some showing a poor table unexpected results? I completely agree with that. And almost a cure in this case that convinced these in or through a lot of them. That might be a question that I'd like to might have my opposing colleagues. To me, I don't think that the PTO had a good reason, that's I've been perhaps sure this Austrian after seven years of interference. But the claims, it's the most happened. It's big does. And I think here what happened is, you know, you had three different standards over the course of seven years and originally, you know, the first part of the prosecution was all spent trying to differentiate, what are references? We're trying to entity the sharing references. They try to come up with all sorts of reasons why sharing references wouldn't get in a version or they're in scale at the art of running the crawl

. And those were rejected time and time again by the PTO examiner. The examiner, the player didn't interference. They go into the interference. Sharing essentially takes the calm, calm claims. One is that getting the 258 had an original included claim to apply this isomer. And a vent is to try to get something out of the PTO, try to promote this distinction at substantially free of other isomers. Some call represents an advancement over the art. Now that raises us some of the 112 issues, which is that if you're going to say that substantially free of other isomers now, as you're mentioned, you know, where is that in specification? And that's one of the first rejections that the PTO examiner issued when those claims came back before her. Issue issue is section 112 written description of rejection. She's a player. Here at an example, someone said anything about the purity of the working examples. You know, it was undisputed in trial that substantially free of other isomers is nowhere to describe in a specification. So, substantially free of other isomers is supposedly added something here that's invented. What problem was it trying to solve? You know, what have you given the public in exchange for substantially free of other isomers? Getting back to the obvious is what is that? As I understand it, the district worked down. No unexpected use of it

. That's correct. And now, I can have the good to know you, if they knew about that, fine. No, we completely agree that there weren't any unexpected results here. When they were, when a van just was before the PTO, they submitted a declaration by a general when they missed her backer. And what Mr. Becker told the PTO is, I've made a mixture of isomers where the amount of ramacol in there is about 35%. I've got some pure ramacol, five isomers, that's, you know, there are about 100%. And look, it turns out that this 100% ramacol is three times more coatings than the mixture. And the district principal, let's really not say it on that much, but you basically done as you, you know, cut the dosage by a third and you got one third of the coatings. How was that unexpected? So, you know, so I think that, you know, that was given to the PTO. And the PTO is very well provided on that to avoid the obviousness rejection. But when the district court actually delved into the actual data and heard the FN's trial, he was not convinced that there were any unexpected results at all. And since he made a specific finding to that effect, he found there was no commercial success. That could be associated with this. And this is the, this is, if there was other like some more case that was designed to be found obvious, I think that this is the one

. It's not going to be a interview or a revoke, but go back. Yep, that's it. You want to say a revoke? Yes, thank you. Well, I'll say now I'm going to invite the argument. Where is it? Just a good morning round of the adjacent district. Yes, shot makes sure you're from trying to stay up. You have to keep following the rules. One of the arguments we heard this morning, we were trying to debate how much time to stay for each other. And I'm going to seek my time as Mr. Kackoff and we'd like to reserve one minute time and have a cost of view. Thank you, Mr. Court. I'm told that's our pilot address that the audience is questioning this and that. I spoke to that. And the first thing I'd like to address is the Lynn's question about what the damage of the single isomer, so that's a few of other isomers is the postal mixture

. And the record shows, you're on that, that round pro that is applied as isomer, so that's actually three of other isomers is 18 times as hoped as the next most potent isomers. Which means that when round pro is mixed with any other isomers, you have something which is less potent than round pro. So that's what I'm going to say. And that was a finding of the district court actually in 18 times as potent. And that did not lead to district court to find that thing was any funny stuff. So well, the district court, well, you're on a reflective, direct your attention to page 877-78 with page 76-77 of district court's opinion. The court said the court agrees with the Venice King with the evidence show that as of 1981, there was no expectation that the round pro substantially three of other isomers would be more or less potent than in mixture. No expectation would be more or less potent than in mixture. How would be less potent? Would be less potent than in mixture. If some other isomers, it's more potent than round pro. So if you mix round pro with something which is more potent than that mixture would be more potent than round pro itself. As of the time of the invention, no one knew which was the most potent isomers. It wasn't known. And since it wasn't known what's the most potent isomers, it could not be predicted whether round pro substantially three of other isomers would be more or less potent than in mixture. That's what the court said

. The defendant's page 81, the court said, find that the court is not persuaded that the evidence shows that now please state the case on expectations of the assaults. Yes. And then the court goes on to discuss whether it's superior to a nullification, which was another prior on compound as opposed to whether it was more or less potent than in mixture. So the court did find that it was not convinced that it was under effective results on that. On this superiority with effective a nullification. But with respect to the superior superiority over the mixture, the court did find that there was no expectation as of the time of the invention that round pro substantially three of other isomers would be more or less potent than in mixture. And that's important to the other isoners. And your honors for round pro substantially three of other isomers to be obvious over the prior mixture. I submit you need three things. You need under the law. You need a reasonable expectation of success that you're going to be able to separate the single isomers from the mixture. Second, even if you have that reasonable expectation of success that you're going to be able to separate out the isomers, you need a reason to go for a single isomer as opposed to just stay with the mixture using that. And finally, it's common sense is not that the content that has some advantageous effectiveness for medicinal purposes that you're always trying to find it in more pure form. It's just logic. Well, that probably is effective in some form that it can be made in a more more one would normally extract that it will be more effective

. Well, your honor. Many drugs have different isomers that are equally effective and are sold in fact as mixtures of isomers to call your scenic mixtures mixtures of two isomers. Riddlein was one which was mentioned during the trial in the district court. Riddlein is sold as a as a reccee of mixture to different isomers. Subsequently, it was discovered that a particular isomer was more potent and now that has been developed as a commercial product. The fact that you have theoretically you can go search for a particular isomer and get something better doesn't mean that that's obvious but you have a mixture that works into comfortable to that. In this case, you're honored. We're very lucky. We're in a context of the asar case trying to make a good content to it. Yes, so I was really lucky to be a black thing kind of case. I wish you'd just wear that out. The principle of KSR was you don't look at rigid rules. You look to common sense, particularity, and common sense notions of particularity. We are very lucky because the district court did just that even before KSR and applied common sense notions of particularity. What we have here is we have the sharing scientists who are actually in the labs of the time, people working in the trenches to whom this was not obvious

. The evidence in the trial court was that the evidence in the trial court was sharing Dr. Nusstack, who is a third party, no accident, right in this case. The author of the prior art, he was asked whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to separate that 31925 mixture that he had made into the component isomeric species. He answered not easy to predict. And then he was asked the same question about that example 20 in the sharing reference. He said the same thing. The ability to separate different materials is not readily predicted. There might or might not be inefficient separation achievable. And in fact, another sharing scientist Dr. Smith has filed the same procedure which worked for one compound was applied to another compound. It did not separate the ice immerse. And again, Dr. Keats, the veteran in 722 pan, testified the same effect. He wasn't always possible to separate the ice immerse. So the evidence was there was no reason of expectation of that success was possible

. I'm not sure that you're a man, it's always possible. It is not always possible. The evidence was not always possible. And whether they did not have the expectations they would be able to do it. So that's real world evidence that there was no reasonable expectation of success. And Judge Lane, you noted that this record we might have on motivation. Now Keats are of course that you still need some reason to a person's skill in the art who would go ahead and make the composition a question. I'll try to make me more motivation, but you still need that reason in the prior art. And again, here we have real world evidence. But I have to take the record from the record. And I thought the record of any was very thorough, very comprehensive and showed by a still poll understanding and mastery of the complex issues involved in this case. But it seems to place a great deal of emphasis on motivation in the pre-KSR sense. And I think what the Supreme Court indicated in KSR is that the reason you get the application of that is not required. And then some reasoning means to be shown. Yes, recent to be doing. But as I said earlier, it seems to me it's quite logical to find that just the desire to have a more pure form of a drug use reason enough. But it's easy to apply hindsight to something that happened 25 years ago. But people who were actually there at the time presented sharing scientists to testify in this case. They were asked, well, why do you separate the icebergs? You should say now, well, you're on hindsight to separate the icebergs. The answer was there was not sufficient interest in pure iceberg per se. A3146. Not interesting. Why not? Why win pages? Because they had a mixture of it works. They said that the pharmacological testing, it worked. That's a compound, a mixture. It's a different icebergs. We're not talking about pure means of getting rid of dirt. We're talking about a mixture of drug compounds. Different icebergs, but still a mixture of the world. And as the Mr

. But as I said earlier, it seems to me it's quite logical to find that just the desire to have a more pure form of a drug use reason enough. But it's easy to apply hindsight to something that happened 25 years ago. But people who were actually there at the time presented sharing scientists to testify in this case. They were asked, well, why do you separate the icebergs? You should say now, well, you're on hindsight to separate the icebergs. The answer was there was not sufficient interest in pure iceberg per se. A3146. Not interesting. Why not? Why win pages? Because they had a mixture of it works. They said that the pharmacological testing, it worked. That's a compound, a mixture. It's a different icebergs. We're not talking about pure means of getting rid of dirt. We're talking about a mixture of drug compounds. Different icebergs, but still a mixture of the world. And as the Mr. Court found, there's no reason to expect that a single iceberg would be better. So why go for the particular icebergs? That's the real world evidence at the time was they were not interested in pure iceberg per se as the scientists again, a third party in the next environment case, both through the prior arc, was not interested. So there was no motive that it was better to have to do with the drug use. Well, whether a person's skill in the art would have a reason to make the particular time, or even a work in the art, they weren't interested in it. So they weren't really interested in it. I see what your honor is asking. This was a team of scientists who were working, the testimony was, they're solid only interest for two years to come up with an ACE and Hender. It works. So they weren't interested in this particular iceberg. So they found something that worked. There was no reason to go ahead and separate it. They were not interested in pure icebergs. And beyond that, even if you were interested in a single iceberg, there was no reason to go for the 555 icebergs, particularly the 55 across the bridge at Harvard as the district court found. But there was some indication that all the icebergs were more or more known to be more effective in the prior arc. You're clearly the 5S iceberg

. Court found, there's no reason to expect that a single iceberg would be better. So why go for the particular icebergs? That's the real world evidence at the time was they were not interested in pure iceberg per se as the scientists again, a third party in the next environment case, both through the prior arc, was not interested. So there was no motive that it was better to have to do with the drug use. Well, whether a person's skill in the art would have a reason to make the particular time, or even a work in the art, they weren't interested in it. So they weren't really interested in it. I see what your honor is asking. This was a team of scientists who were working, the testimony was, they're solid only interest for two years to come up with an ACE and Hender. It works. So they weren't interested in this particular iceberg. So they found something that worked. There was no reason to go ahead and separate it. They were not interested in pure icebergs. And beyond that, even if you were interested in a single iceberg, there was no reason to go for the 555 icebergs, particularly the 55 across the bridge at Harvard as the district court found. But there was some indication that all the icebergs were more or more known to be more effective in the prior arc. You're clearly the 5S iceberg. But there was some indication that all icebergs were more effective. You're honored that contains the carvings that the chiral centers, not at the bridge, and rather the blue outshade. So there was the... It's not exactly nothing now in terms of the obviousness and... But you would wonder this, some reason. You would need some reason. You would need... You have S's at one end of the molecule. You'd have some reason why you would also expect that you would want to have S's at the other end of the molecule at the bridge-shade harvest

. But there was some indication that all icebergs were more effective. You're honored that contains the carvings that the chiral centers, not at the bridge, and rather the blue outshade. So there was the... It's not exactly nothing now in terms of the obviousness and... But you would wonder this, some reason. You would need some reason. You would need... You have S's at one end of the molecule. You'd have some reason why you would also expect that you would want to have S's at the other end of the molecule at the bridge-shade harvest. And there was no evidence that the information that you had about Cacticro and the Nalicro which had to do with the other end of the molecule tells you what you should have at the bridge-shade. And your honor, on this point, actually, the testimony in the district court was unanimous. Existence from both sides. And the sharing managers. And the eventist inventors. Everyone agreed that there was nothing in the prior arc that tells you what should be at the bridge-shade, the bridge-shade should be S's. And it's somewhat oversimplifying to say, always. Because that's pertaining to parts of the molecule which are not nearly initial here. The parts of the molecule which is initial here is the cross-leprichet, where there was nothing in the prior arc that would tell a person still the arc that when he came to the five, five of those two five-membered rings that are fused together when you have a bridge-shade which connects those two. Carbon rings that you should have S's across the bridge-shade. The only thing which looped and relies on for the bridge-shade carbons was in disclosure, in the sharing references, where there was a six-five ring-sister. That means a six-membered ring attached to a five-membered ring. It's a different molecule where there was a molecule that flows in the sharing references which had an S's there. But the evidence at trial was that the only reason there was an S's there is that was a consequence of the particular synthetic process for making that. And that the process was used for making the five-fifth-five rings was a different process which would not result in the S's

. And there was no evidence that the information that you had about Cacticro and the Nalicro which had to do with the other end of the molecule tells you what you should have at the bridge-shade. And your honor, on this point, actually, the testimony in the district court was unanimous. Existence from both sides. And the sharing managers. And the eventist inventors. Everyone agreed that there was nothing in the prior arc that tells you what should be at the bridge-shade, the bridge-shade should be S's. And it's somewhat oversimplifying to say, always. Because that's pertaining to parts of the molecule which are not nearly initial here. The parts of the molecule which is initial here is the cross-leprichet, where there was nothing in the prior arc that would tell a person still the arc that when he came to the five, five of those two five-membered rings that are fused together when you have a bridge-shade which connects those two. Carbon rings that you should have S's across the bridge-shade. The only thing which looped and relies on for the bridge-shade carbons was in disclosure, in the sharing references, where there was a six-five ring-sister. That means a six-membered ring attached to a five-membered ring. It's a different molecule where there was a molecule that flows in the sharing references which had an S's there. But the evidence at trial was that the only reason there was an S's there is that was a consequence of the particular synthetic process for making that. And that the process was used for making the five-fifth-five rings was a different process which would not result in the S's. There was no data in the sharing reference which would tell you if you put S's there, you get something better. So again, there was nothing in the prior arc suggesting S's at the bridge-shade as being in any way superior or the way it got. So again, just to pick it off very quickly, number one, the issue of ease of separation or difficulty of separation, no reason for expectation of density. So I think that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem has been the actions at this point for example now I'm usually courts simply found that the trial court below did not need to reach the issue or whether or not the A and A certification based on certification that is needed to be elevated to a fine. Certainly did not say that it was prohibited, even in the election, even in the election suffers from some other a couple of additional problems. One being of course that was not a paragraph for the case of an antibiotic case and was no certification for the next case. There again court never said that based on a baseless paragraph for certification there cannot be a charge of wolf on fridge. You're arguing willfulness to support an exceptional case determination of a section 285 and not an enhancement of damage to support on the 284 because damage is not appropriate in this context. Yes, there's been no commercial monster about it obviously. The enhancement of damages we have to look at during the season which will be around the heat here is certainly an option. The finding of wolf on fridge may put in hand-slowed damages to it. But to say from the get-go that willfulness has a claim in a hand-slash of case. A baseless paragraph for exists as a matter of war does not exist. It's not been stated by this court. Yeah, but we there's at least a couple of cases on the other side of it at the district court level since the last of some on the side of the last of if you look at the reason behind the court conclusions in those cases doesn't necessarily be fought with it doesn't address the common sense and common sense actions here and intent to patch reaction

. There was no data in the sharing reference which would tell you if you put S's there, you get something better. So again, there was nothing in the prior arc suggesting S's at the bridge-shade as being in any way superior or the way it got. So again, just to pick it off very quickly, number one, the issue of ease of separation or difficulty of separation, no reason for expectation of density. So I think that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem has been the actions at this point for example now I'm usually courts simply found that the trial court below did not need to reach the issue or whether or not the A and A certification based on certification that is needed to be elevated to a fine. Certainly did not say that it was prohibited, even in the election, even in the election suffers from some other a couple of additional problems. One being of course that was not a paragraph for the case of an antibiotic case and was no certification for the next case. There again court never said that based on a baseless paragraph for certification there cannot be a charge of wolf on fridge. You're arguing willfulness to support an exceptional case determination of a section 285 and not an enhancement of damage to support on the 284 because damage is not appropriate in this context. Yes, there's been no commercial monster about it obviously. The enhancement of damages we have to look at during the season which will be around the heat here is certainly an option. The finding of wolf on fridge may put in hand-slowed damages to it. But to say from the get-go that willfulness has a claim in a hand-slash of case. A baseless paragraph for exists as a matter of war does not exist. It's not been stated by this court. Yeah, but we there's at least a couple of cases on the other side of it at the district court level since the last of some on the side of the last of if you look at the reason behind the court conclusions in those cases doesn't necessarily be fought with it doesn't address the common sense and common sense actions here and intent to patch reaction. Ultimately, government should be recognized as a duty of care from the final fair of force of the commission and that duty of care needs to be taken. If you allow fair of four finals, simply to say any of the other. I think that's just what we should ask for. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, women. I will show you a potency differences. Again, in fact, in the end some cases recognize that those of us on the other expected some potency differences. The fact that Rammockville experienced some here is not something that writers do not know of. Second, under KSR, the facts are all here that the court needs in order to be able to find this had an obvious. Common sense shows that what the personal ordinary skill we are would expect that there's going to be potency differences and the five as I saw in the program, the one that was the most potent that's not a surprise, makes any of it some other isers. Does it change the potency Rammockville? There have been some cases that the district court level, where for example any other isers has caused either a potentiation of one of the rates of the ex-reports caused a production of the facts. That hasn't happened here. Rammockville works just as well. It's got a very similar status along with the district court found

. Ultimately, government should be recognized as a duty of care from the final fair of force of the commission and that duty of care needs to be taken. If you allow fair of four finals, simply to say any of the other. I think that's just what we should ask for. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, women. I will show you a potency differences. Again, in fact, in the end some cases recognize that those of us on the other expected some potency differences. The fact that Rammockville experienced some here is not something that writers do not know of. Second, under KSR, the facts are all here that the court needs in order to be able to find this had an obvious. Common sense shows that what the personal ordinary skill we are would expect that there's going to be potency differences and the five as I saw in the program, the one that was the most potent that's not a surprise, makes any of it some other isers. Does it change the potency Rammockville? There have been some cases that the district court level, where for example any other isers has caused either a potentiation of one of the rates of the ex-reports caused a production of the facts. That hasn't happened here. Rammockville works just as well. It's got a very similar status along with the district court found. That's not been shown to be clearly earliest. Okay. KSR of course dealt with a combination of that in a chronic or a mechanical area. We're not in a particular R. Well, I think that we are. We're in the art of base inhibitors. So, base inhibitors, the structures in the molecule were based on the Brazilian snake structure. It was an all-S isomer because it was a naturally occurring townhome. It was a single isomer. So, that's how we are developed. I mean, this was structure-based drug design. Capricorn, which was the first molecule, you know, monolin, that's the name found, all-S isomer. And Nalopriol can say the thing, all-S isomer, market it as a single isomer product. Work and form the art that when you change one of these S isomer, so in R isomer, you could experience a 700-fold potency mechanism. So, the fact that they know the base, they say that they found an 18-fold potency difference as well within the optimization range that the person of ordinary stone we are going to expect

. That's not been shown to be clearly earliest. Okay. KSR of course dealt with a combination of that in a chronic or a mechanical area. We're not in a particular R. Well, I think that we are. We're in the art of base inhibitors. So, base inhibitors, the structures in the molecule were based on the Brazilian snake structure. It was an all-S isomer because it was a naturally occurring townhome. It was a single isomer. So, that's how we are developed. I mean, this was structure-based drug design. Capricorn, which was the first molecule, you know, monolin, that's the name found, all-S isomer. And Nalopriol can say the thing, all-S isomer, market it as a single isomer product. Work and form the art that when you change one of these S isomer, so in R isomer, you could experience a 700-fold potency mechanism. So, the fact that they know the base, they say that they found an 18-fold potency difference as well within the optimization range that the person of ordinary stone we are going to expect. And when you get to the sharing reference itself, it specifically teaches in a specification that when it comes to these amino acid parts substructures, the preference is for the S isomer. Why? Because that's what mimics the naturally occurring compound. The ring system, that's an issue here, it's based on a choline ring. Choline is a naturally occurring amino acid. It's in the S configuration. So, if even when it comes to the other examples that share input in their patent application, you know, you've got this 5, 6 ring that we have, that my colleagues disparage, but a 5, 6 ring structurally is going to do a rate system where one ring will be up like this, the other ring will be up like this. And you've got the 5, 5 rate system. Why would the person of ordinary scale the art want to change, change the isomer configuration so that it flips down in the opposite direction? But I'm going to do that. There's going to stick with a guy a post that's sharing hands that those of scale the art had, which is all the time going towards the S isomer. And more importantly, there's no teaching that says you should go in the opposite direction. So, we don't have the situation here where there's teaching away from the ultimate preferrizer. And again, when it comes to the predictability of this art, I think that both your honors or on the ATHATX being comes at the lies of the ATHATX, I'm only thinking this is a mere fact that you might have to do some testing here there that's routine to figure out which of these isomer is going to be good. And that's probably the iceberg. That doesn't show that you selected something or that you've done something that's not obvious. And on the issue of isomer separation, again, if you, I think the most telling happens is that when you look at the 722 head, you don't see anything in there that says isomer separation is hard

. And when you get to the sharing reference itself, it specifically teaches in a specification that when it comes to these amino acid parts substructures, the preference is for the S isomer. Why? Because that's what mimics the naturally occurring compound. The ring system, that's an issue here, it's based on a choline ring. Choline is a naturally occurring amino acid. It's in the S configuration. So, if even when it comes to the other examples that share input in their patent application, you know, you've got this 5, 6 ring that we have, that my colleagues disparage, but a 5, 6 ring structurally is going to do a rate system where one ring will be up like this, the other ring will be up like this. And you've got the 5, 5 rate system. Why would the person of ordinary scale the art want to change, change the isomer configuration so that it flips down in the opposite direction? But I'm going to do that. There's going to stick with a guy a post that's sharing hands that those of scale the art had, which is all the time going towards the S isomer. And more importantly, there's no teaching that says you should go in the opposite direction. So, we don't have the situation here where there's teaching away from the ultimate preferrizer. And again, when it comes to the predictability of this art, I think that both your honors or on the ATHATX being comes at the lies of the ATHATX, I'm only thinking this is a mere fact that you might have to do some testing here there that's routine to figure out which of these isomer is going to be good. And that's probably the iceberg. That doesn't show that you selected something or that you've done something that's not obvious. And on the issue of isomer separation, again, if you, I think the most telling happens is that when you look at the 722 head, you don't see anything in there that says isomer separation is hard. Here's a problem that we've solved in the art. They said use column chromatography, which is the same technique that Sharon used, is the same technique that murk used, that squib used me, capped a pril, and if you look at all the third generation A's and Hiddlers, what do they all say? These icebergs can be separated using column chromatography, fractal crystallization. These are known methods. And this report found that these were known methods. So I'd be here. I don't think that they've done anything other than the obvious. And that's exactly why KSR was the support to find that in this paper. Let's see if you can use it for that. I think that would be really good. Thank you.

Good morning. It's our pleasure to welcome Judge James Robertson, from the United States District Department of District of Columbia, sitting with us by his name, Chief Justice, and we appreciate his assistance. The first case is going to have that as Farm Mummy Hooper, 1061530155. Good morning, Your Honor. May I please the Court? The bulk of the district court's back findings below were correct, and the bill does not challenge a lot of appeal. But there were critical judges in the district court's legal analysis for it by the strike, and I was addressed three errors in particular this morning. First, the district court brought me presumed that the sharing of prior heart had to say should separate isoners, rather than can separate or may isolate isoners in order for looping to prove invalididate by clear convincing evidence. Second, the district court ignored this court's all elements rule in the context of its equivalent analysis. Rather than to analyze what looping's delivered edition of prior isoners to its product was the equivalent of a claim that required them to be removed. The district court's analysis turned on whether looping's ANDA product was very beautifully equivalent to a commercial body that was error. Here, the case is procedurally positioned so that the court can enter some rejection of non-infringement in a paper looping. Looping some rejection of motion below presented unributted expert testimony that the amount of other isoners of looping's product were large and substantial. We've been also presented unributted test data in a form of TLC testing but demonstrated that the amount of other isoners of its products could be tested and detected by the very test that events has hit our line on before the PTO to support its substantial agreement or isoners claim on it to satisfy the written description requirement. Third, the 722-10t violates 35 USC section one title. The district court found that the specification never defines the phrase substantial agreement of other isoners, never describes what substantial agreement of other isoners is, and the specification never even characterizes as the invention that ran up throughout substantial agreement of other isoners is what the inventors meant to claim. Since substantial agreement of other isoners is the only claim element that has been alleged to differentiate the 17th-tene claim from the sharing of prior heart. Those deficiencies in the specification are fatal under this court's case law such as Seattle, Oxford, Westborough, and Credit, Quaywell, the ITC, and Purdue Farmer. If I may have left to start with the obviousness analysis, because here the district court clearly found it to be critical that the sharing part of our only thought of personal ordinary skill they are but the disclosed rare-prone isoners could be isolated or should be separated, or may be separated as opposed to should be separated. But that was error and that error is readily correctable here. In Ray Adams' 275F-2952, CCPA 1960, never required so stringent as standard as should be separated. In Adams' senate, the pending plans were directed to an isomer that was substantially separated from its companionizer. The analysis that the court followed there was first with the person's skill and the understanding. Let me just ask you, if you have any other questions, do you think that KSR is bringing forward case effects on other human beings? I'd love if it would KSR instructs, and I think that the KSR case tells us, is that you shouldn't have an extremely rigid test for demonstrating obviousness. And here I think that trying to draw a distinction between should separate versus can be isolated or maybe separated, that that's really too stringent of a test. What the Supreme Court made clear in KSR is that the person, is it the critical part of the analysis? Is there something that would prompt the person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claim in the mentioned? Here, when the very prior word reference discloses this all-assurant or curl isomer and tells you, not once but twice within the specification that the S islers and these other islers should be separated from one another or maybe isolated from one another. And when you look at the actual specification itself, and everywhere in the specification is talking about preferences for the S isomer. When you take that, and then we couple it with the District Court's other fact findings that found, for example, what the college chromatography separation technique that the one that is disclosed and shared in the prior word reference is the same one that was used in the 722 pattern, that this is something that persons of ordinary skill in the art who know how to use to separate isomers that is considered to be a routine technique that can be used to separate isomers. And the District Court also finds that the level of ordinary skill in the art is high, you know, that in and of itself, the directs of the appropriate readiness and obvious, particularly when the District Court found that there were no secondary considerations that were demonstrated in the Aralmias S. The District Court here explained to me place the great deal of emphasis on motivation or black theorem. And that sense perhaps ASR does change the lens view. Right. Well, I think even in the pre-KSI landscape, you know, the test of this court was never a motivation that was, you know, you must be able to get this product, or there must be an exclusive instruction that you will go get this product. And of course, the press went up, you know, it was then that there needs to be some reason, some suggestion or motivation in the mind. And here, the Sharon Prior Artcrafts is by saying these isoers can be isolated and it may be separated. That's all the suggestion that you should need. And that's why, you know, when it gets to the atoms and shapes that came up in the 1960s, that will lie out of a reference that was back in 1949 that said the person of ordinary skill in the art in this field is going to understand once they are aware that the race may exist, that separation of these isoers is potentially possible. Now, as I understand it, the prosecution in this case was rather lengthy and at one point, the claims were amended in this limitation focusing on the substation of three other isomers and that soonly did the trick of convincing the examiner to allow this. But what was about the purer that rendered these claims abnormal? If the Prior Art shows a compounding, a compounding mixed with other compounds is certainly a claim to this compound in a more pure form, as it is, certainly result in patent. Will it absence some showing a poor table unexpected results? I completely agree with that. And almost a cure in this case that convinced these in or through a lot of them. That might be a question that I'd like to might have my opposing colleagues. To me, I don't think that the PTO had a good reason, that's I've been perhaps sure this Austrian after seven years of interference. But the claims, it's the most happened. It's big does. And I think here what happened is, you know, you had three different standards over the course of seven years and originally, you know, the first part of the prosecution was all spent trying to differentiate, what are references? We're trying to entity the sharing references. They try to come up with all sorts of reasons why sharing references wouldn't get in a version or they're in scale at the art of running the crawl. And those were rejected time and time again by the PTO examiner. The examiner, the player didn't interference. They go into the interference. Sharing essentially takes the calm, calm claims. One is that getting the 258 had an original included claim to apply this isomer. And a vent is to try to get something out of the PTO, try to promote this distinction at substantially free of other isomers. Some call represents an advancement over the art. Now that raises us some of the 112 issues, which is that if you're going to say that substantially free of other isomers now, as you're mentioned, you know, where is that in specification? And that's one of the first rejections that the PTO examiner issued when those claims came back before her. Issue issue is section 112 written description of rejection. She's a player. Here at an example, someone said anything about the purity of the working examples. You know, it was undisputed in trial that substantially free of other isomers is nowhere to describe in a specification. So, substantially free of other isomers is supposedly added something here that's invented. What problem was it trying to solve? You know, what have you given the public in exchange for substantially free of other isomers? Getting back to the obvious is what is that? As I understand it, the district worked down. No unexpected use of it. That's correct. And now, I can have the good to know you, if they knew about that, fine. No, we completely agree that there weren't any unexpected results here. When they were, when a van just was before the PTO, they submitted a declaration by a general when they missed her backer. And what Mr. Becker told the PTO is, I've made a mixture of isomers where the amount of ramacol in there is about 35%. I've got some pure ramacol, five isomers, that's, you know, there are about 100%. And look, it turns out that this 100% ramacol is three times more coatings than the mixture. And the district principal, let's really not say it on that much, but you basically done as you, you know, cut the dosage by a third and you got one third of the coatings. How was that unexpected? So, you know, so I think that, you know, that was given to the PTO. And the PTO is very well provided on that to avoid the obviousness rejection. But when the district court actually delved into the actual data and heard the FN's trial, he was not convinced that there were any unexpected results at all. And since he made a specific finding to that effect, he found there was no commercial success. That could be associated with this. And this is the, this is, if there was other like some more case that was designed to be found obvious, I think that this is the one. It's not going to be a interview or a revoke, but go back. Yep, that's it. You want to say a revoke? Yes, thank you. Well, I'll say now I'm going to invite the argument. Where is it? Just a good morning round of the adjacent district. Yes, shot makes sure you're from trying to stay up. You have to keep following the rules. One of the arguments we heard this morning, we were trying to debate how much time to stay for each other. And I'm going to seek my time as Mr. Kackoff and we'd like to reserve one minute time and have a cost of view. Thank you, Mr. Court. I'm told that's our pilot address that the audience is questioning this and that. I spoke to that. And the first thing I'd like to address is the Lynn's question about what the damage of the single isomer, so that's a few of other isomers is the postal mixture. And the record shows, you're on that, that round pro that is applied as isomer, so that's actually three of other isomers is 18 times as hoped as the next most potent isomers. Which means that when round pro is mixed with any other isomers, you have something which is less potent than round pro. So that's what I'm going to say. And that was a finding of the district court actually in 18 times as potent. And that did not lead to district court to find that thing was any funny stuff. So well, the district court, well, you're on a reflective, direct your attention to page 877-78 with page 76-77 of district court's opinion. The court said the court agrees with the Venice King with the evidence show that as of 1981, there was no expectation that the round pro substantially three of other isomers would be more or less potent than in mixture. No expectation would be more or less potent than in mixture. How would be less potent? Would be less potent than in mixture. If some other isomers, it's more potent than round pro. So if you mix round pro with something which is more potent than that mixture would be more potent than round pro itself. As of the time of the invention, no one knew which was the most potent isomers. It wasn't known. And since it wasn't known what's the most potent isomers, it could not be predicted whether round pro substantially three of other isomers would be more or less potent than in mixture. That's what the court said. The defendant's page 81, the court said, find that the court is not persuaded that the evidence shows that now please state the case on expectations of the assaults. Yes. And then the court goes on to discuss whether it's superior to a nullification, which was another prior on compound as opposed to whether it was more or less potent than in mixture. So the court did find that it was not convinced that it was under effective results on that. On this superiority with effective a nullification. But with respect to the superior superiority over the mixture, the court did find that there was no expectation as of the time of the invention that round pro substantially three of other isomers would be more or less potent than in mixture. And that's important to the other isoners. And your honors for round pro substantially three of other isomers to be obvious over the prior mixture. I submit you need three things. You need under the law. You need a reasonable expectation of success that you're going to be able to separate the single isomers from the mixture. Second, even if you have that reasonable expectation of success that you're going to be able to separate out the isomers, you need a reason to go for a single isomer as opposed to just stay with the mixture using that. And finally, it's common sense is not that the content that has some advantageous effectiveness for medicinal purposes that you're always trying to find it in more pure form. It's just logic. Well, that probably is effective in some form that it can be made in a more more one would normally extract that it will be more effective. Well, your honor. Many drugs have different isomers that are equally effective and are sold in fact as mixtures of isomers to call your scenic mixtures mixtures of two isomers. Riddlein was one which was mentioned during the trial in the district court. Riddlein is sold as a as a reccee of mixture to different isomers. Subsequently, it was discovered that a particular isomer was more potent and now that has been developed as a commercial product. The fact that you have theoretically you can go search for a particular isomer and get something better doesn't mean that that's obvious but you have a mixture that works into comfortable to that. In this case, you're honored. We're very lucky. We're in a context of the asar case trying to make a good content to it. Yes, so I was really lucky to be a black thing kind of case. I wish you'd just wear that out. The principle of KSR was you don't look at rigid rules. You look to common sense, particularity, and common sense notions of particularity. We are very lucky because the district court did just that even before KSR and applied common sense notions of particularity. What we have here is we have the sharing scientists who are actually in the labs of the time, people working in the trenches to whom this was not obvious. The evidence in the trial court was that the evidence in the trial court was sharing Dr. Nusstack, who is a third party, no accident, right in this case. The author of the prior art, he was asked whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to separate that 31925 mixture that he had made into the component isomeric species. He answered not easy to predict. And then he was asked the same question about that example 20 in the sharing reference. He said the same thing. The ability to separate different materials is not readily predicted. There might or might not be inefficient separation achievable. And in fact, another sharing scientist Dr. Smith has filed the same procedure which worked for one compound was applied to another compound. It did not separate the ice immerse. And again, Dr. Keats, the veteran in 722 pan, testified the same effect. He wasn't always possible to separate the ice immerse. So the evidence was there was no reason of expectation of that success was possible. I'm not sure that you're a man, it's always possible. It is not always possible. The evidence was not always possible. And whether they did not have the expectations they would be able to do it. So that's real world evidence that there was no reasonable expectation of success. And Judge Lane, you noted that this record we might have on motivation. Now Keats are of course that you still need some reason to a person's skill in the art who would go ahead and make the composition a question. I'll try to make me more motivation, but you still need that reason in the prior art. And again, here we have real world evidence. But I have to take the record from the record. And I thought the record of any was very thorough, very comprehensive and showed by a still poll understanding and mastery of the complex issues involved in this case. But it seems to place a great deal of emphasis on motivation in the pre-KSR sense. And I think what the Supreme Court indicated in KSR is that the reason you get the application of that is not required. And then some reasoning means to be shown. Yes, recent to be doing. But as I said earlier, it seems to me it's quite logical to find that just the desire to have a more pure form of a drug use reason enough. But it's easy to apply hindsight to something that happened 25 years ago. But people who were actually there at the time presented sharing scientists to testify in this case. They were asked, well, why do you separate the icebergs? You should say now, well, you're on hindsight to separate the icebergs. The answer was there was not sufficient interest in pure iceberg per se. A3146. Not interesting. Why not? Why win pages? Because they had a mixture of it works. They said that the pharmacological testing, it worked. That's a compound, a mixture. It's a different icebergs. We're not talking about pure means of getting rid of dirt. We're talking about a mixture of drug compounds. Different icebergs, but still a mixture of the world. And as the Mr. Court found, there's no reason to expect that a single iceberg would be better. So why go for the particular icebergs? That's the real world evidence at the time was they were not interested in pure iceberg per se as the scientists again, a third party in the next environment case, both through the prior arc, was not interested. So there was no motive that it was better to have to do with the drug use. Well, whether a person's skill in the art would have a reason to make the particular time, or even a work in the art, they weren't interested in it. So they weren't really interested in it. I see what your honor is asking. This was a team of scientists who were working, the testimony was, they're solid only interest for two years to come up with an ACE and Hender. It works. So they weren't interested in this particular iceberg. So they found something that worked. There was no reason to go ahead and separate it. They were not interested in pure icebergs. And beyond that, even if you were interested in a single iceberg, there was no reason to go for the 555 icebergs, particularly the 55 across the bridge at Harvard as the district court found. But there was some indication that all the icebergs were more or more known to be more effective in the prior arc. You're clearly the 5S iceberg. But there was some indication that all icebergs were more effective. You're honored that contains the carvings that the chiral centers, not at the bridge, and rather the blue outshade. So there was the... It's not exactly nothing now in terms of the obviousness and... But you would wonder this, some reason. You would need some reason. You would need... You have S's at one end of the molecule. You'd have some reason why you would also expect that you would want to have S's at the other end of the molecule at the bridge-shade harvest. And there was no evidence that the information that you had about Cacticro and the Nalicro which had to do with the other end of the molecule tells you what you should have at the bridge-shade. And your honor, on this point, actually, the testimony in the district court was unanimous. Existence from both sides. And the sharing managers. And the eventist inventors. Everyone agreed that there was nothing in the prior arc that tells you what should be at the bridge-shade, the bridge-shade should be S's. And it's somewhat oversimplifying to say, always. Because that's pertaining to parts of the molecule which are not nearly initial here. The parts of the molecule which is initial here is the cross-leprichet, where there was nothing in the prior arc that would tell a person still the arc that when he came to the five, five of those two five-membered rings that are fused together when you have a bridge-shade which connects those two. Carbon rings that you should have S's across the bridge-shade. The only thing which looped and relies on for the bridge-shade carbons was in disclosure, in the sharing references, where there was a six-five ring-sister. That means a six-membered ring attached to a five-membered ring. It's a different molecule where there was a molecule that flows in the sharing references which had an S's there. But the evidence at trial was that the only reason there was an S's there is that was a consequence of the particular synthetic process for making that. And that the process was used for making the five-fifth-five rings was a different process which would not result in the S's. There was no data in the sharing reference which would tell you if you put S's there, you get something better. So again, there was nothing in the prior arc suggesting S's at the bridge-shade as being in any way superior or the way it got. So again, just to pick it off very quickly, number one, the issue of ease of separation or difficulty of separation, no reason for expectation of density. So I think that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem is that the problem has been the actions at this point for example now I'm usually courts simply found that the trial court below did not need to reach the issue or whether or not the A and A certification based on certification that is needed to be elevated to a fine. Certainly did not say that it was prohibited, even in the election, even in the election suffers from some other a couple of additional problems. One being of course that was not a paragraph for the case of an antibiotic case and was no certification for the next case. There again court never said that based on a baseless paragraph for certification there cannot be a charge of wolf on fridge. You're arguing willfulness to support an exceptional case determination of a section 285 and not an enhancement of damage to support on the 284 because damage is not appropriate in this context. Yes, there's been no commercial monster about it obviously. The enhancement of damages we have to look at during the season which will be around the heat here is certainly an option. The finding of wolf on fridge may put in hand-slowed damages to it. But to say from the get-go that willfulness has a claim in a hand-slash of case. A baseless paragraph for exists as a matter of war does not exist. It's not been stated by this court. Yeah, but we there's at least a couple of cases on the other side of it at the district court level since the last of some on the side of the last of if you look at the reason behind the court conclusions in those cases doesn't necessarily be fought with it doesn't address the common sense and common sense actions here and intent to patch reaction. Ultimately, government should be recognized as a duty of care from the final fair of force of the commission and that duty of care needs to be taken. If you allow fair of four finals, simply to say any of the other. I think that's just what we should ask for. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, women. I will show you a potency differences. Again, in fact, in the end some cases recognize that those of us on the other expected some potency differences. The fact that Rammockville experienced some here is not something that writers do not know of. Second, under KSR, the facts are all here that the court needs in order to be able to find this had an obvious. Common sense shows that what the personal ordinary skill we are would expect that there's going to be potency differences and the five as I saw in the program, the one that was the most potent that's not a surprise, makes any of it some other isers. Does it change the potency Rammockville? There have been some cases that the district court level, where for example any other isers has caused either a potentiation of one of the rates of the ex-reports caused a production of the facts. That hasn't happened here. Rammockville works just as well. It's got a very similar status along with the district court found. That's not been shown to be clearly earliest. Okay. KSR of course dealt with a combination of that in a chronic or a mechanical area. We're not in a particular R. Well, I think that we are. We're in the art of base inhibitors. So, base inhibitors, the structures in the molecule were based on the Brazilian snake structure. It was an all-S isomer because it was a naturally occurring townhome. It was a single isomer. So, that's how we are developed. I mean, this was structure-based drug design. Capricorn, which was the first molecule, you know, monolin, that's the name found, all-S isomer. And Nalopriol can say the thing, all-S isomer, market it as a single isomer product. Work and form the art that when you change one of these S isomer, so in R isomer, you could experience a 700-fold potency mechanism. So, the fact that they know the base, they say that they found an 18-fold potency difference as well within the optimization range that the person of ordinary stone we are going to expect. And when you get to the sharing reference itself, it specifically teaches in a specification that when it comes to these amino acid parts substructures, the preference is for the S isomer. Why? Because that's what mimics the naturally occurring compound. The ring system, that's an issue here, it's based on a choline ring. Choline is a naturally occurring amino acid. It's in the S configuration. So, if even when it comes to the other examples that share input in their patent application, you know, you've got this 5, 6 ring that we have, that my colleagues disparage, but a 5, 6 ring structurally is going to do a rate system where one ring will be up like this, the other ring will be up like this. And you've got the 5, 5 rate system. Why would the person of ordinary scale the art want to change, change the isomer configuration so that it flips down in the opposite direction? But I'm going to do that. There's going to stick with a guy a post that's sharing hands that those of scale the art had, which is all the time going towards the S isomer. And more importantly, there's no teaching that says you should go in the opposite direction. So, we don't have the situation here where there's teaching away from the ultimate preferrizer. And again, when it comes to the predictability of this art, I think that both your honors or on the ATHATX being comes at the lies of the ATHATX, I'm only thinking this is a mere fact that you might have to do some testing here there that's routine to figure out which of these isomer is going to be good. And that's probably the iceberg. That doesn't show that you selected something or that you've done something that's not obvious. And on the issue of isomer separation, again, if you, I think the most telling happens is that when you look at the 722 head, you don't see anything in there that says isomer separation is hard. Here's a problem that we've solved in the art. They said use column chromatography, which is the same technique that Sharon used, is the same technique that murk used, that squib used me, capped a pril, and if you look at all the third generation A's and Hiddlers, what do they all say? These icebergs can be separated using column chromatography, fractal crystallization. These are known methods. And this report found that these were known methods. So I'd be here. I don't think that they've done anything other than the obvious. And that's exactly why KSR was the support to find that in this paper. Let's see if you can use it for that. I think that would be really good. Thank you