[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
The next case for argument is 23-2380 in Ray Butler.

[00:00:59] Speaker 01:
Good morning, your honors.

[00:01:03] Speaker 01:
Please proceed.

[00:01:03] Speaker 01:
May it please the court.

[00:01:05] Speaker 01:
My name's Bennett Ford, and I'm here on behalf of the patent applicant, the pallet, John Butler, and Stalt.

[00:01:15] Speaker 01:
This invention pertains to a sterling silver owl.

[00:01:20] Speaker 01:
It has silver, copper, palladium, and tin.

[00:01:25] Speaker 01:
And it has no germanium.

[00:01:29] Speaker 01:
There is explicit written description support for every affirmative limitation in this claim.

[00:01:38] Speaker 01:
You can see it at appendix page 29, also in the appendix at page 78.

[00:01:44] Speaker 01:
So the only question is whether or not the specification provides written description support for the negative limitation.

[00:01:52] Speaker 03:
But you understand the deficiency here, the problem the board was having, right?

[00:01:56] Speaker 01:
Honestly, no.

[00:01:58] Speaker 01:
I do not understand the problem of the board yet.

[00:02:01] Speaker 03:
But you don't think that there's nothing, is there anything in the specification that deals with what free from germanium deal does in this patent?

[00:02:14] Speaker 03:
which is aimed at achieving certain softness things and other things.

[00:02:20] Speaker 03:
Is there any discussion, is there any way that person skilled in the art would understand and appreciate what the relevance of being free of germanium achieves in this path?

[00:02:31] Speaker 01:
I think the answer to that is yes.

[00:02:34] Speaker 01:
And the question is, what does it take in the specification to

[00:02:42] Speaker 01:
provide a reason to omit Germanium?

[00:02:46] Speaker 01:
That's the standard in Centaurs.

[00:02:52] Speaker 01:
Does the specification provide a reason for one of skill in the art to omit Germanium?

[00:02:58] Speaker 01:
Now, if it had to be explicit, if you had to say omit Germanium because, we wouldn't be here.

[00:03:06] Speaker 01:
The question is, well,

[00:03:12] Speaker 01:
Does it have to be explicitly stated you should omit germanium?

[00:03:16] Speaker 01:
And I think it's long settled that you don't have to have explicit NHIC-verba support for a negative limitation.

[00:03:23] Speaker 01:
The question is, does the specification provide a reason one of ordinary skill in the art should omit?

[00:03:31] Speaker 02:
And in this case, I'm sorry, Your Honor.

[00:03:32] Speaker 02:
Yes?

[00:03:33] Speaker 02:
As I understand it, you're arguing that the reason can be gleaned from the fact that there are disadvantages

[00:03:42] Speaker 02:
in one versus another with the alloy with germanium versus the alloy without germanium.

[00:03:50] Speaker 02:
That there are advantages and disadvantages and that gives a reason to justify the negative limitation.

[00:03:58] Speaker 02:
Is that, was that your position?

[00:04:00] Speaker 01:
That is correct.

[00:04:01] Speaker 01:
There are three different ways that the specification supports the omission of germanium.

[00:04:09] Speaker 01:
The first is that it provides a description of a preferred embodiment that clearly is free of germane.

[00:04:18] Speaker 01:
The preferred embodiment, if you look at it, it's 100%

[00:04:23] Speaker 01:
listing.

[00:04:24] Speaker 01:
There's no gaps, there's no percentages, the preferred embodiment adds up to 100.005 actually.

[00:04:32] Speaker 01:
So it's a complete listing of the preferred alloy and there's no germanium in it.

[00:04:37] Speaker 01:
So there's no doubt.

[00:04:38] Speaker 02:
But your claim is not directed to the preferred embodiment.

[00:04:42] Speaker 01:
That's true your honor.

[00:04:43] Speaker 01:
But there's no doubt that the inventor was in possession of an alloy that did not contain germanium when the application was filed.

[00:04:52] Speaker 01:
The question is, does the specification provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would omit germanium?

[00:05:01] Speaker 01:
And I think the answer to that is yes, and I think that's the question you're asking.

[00:05:06] Speaker 01:
The first reason is because it lists this germanium-free alloy, and it also lists a germanium-based alloy.

[00:05:15] Speaker 01:
It's an alternative.

[00:05:16] Speaker 01:
It is a different alloy for preventing corrosion.

[00:05:21] Speaker 01:
And so you've got an example that has no germanium.

[00:05:25] Speaker 01:
You have another example that has germanium.

[00:05:27] Speaker 01:
And under NFI, that is all that's required.

[00:05:30] Speaker 02:
I know you mentioned that in your

[00:05:34] Speaker 02:
argument before the board, but it seemed to me that was an argument in passing that your focus was the advantage or disadvantage.

[00:05:44] Speaker 01:
Well, I think that it's both.

[00:05:48] Speaker 02:
I don't want to... It seemed to me the board's decision was that you failed to establish a proper reason based on your argument that one has an advantage over the other because the two alloys

[00:06:04] Speaker 02:
are not exactly the same except for germanium.

[00:06:09] Speaker 02:
There are the differences.

[00:06:11] Speaker 01:
There are other differences, but the question is not are there other differences.

[00:06:15] Speaker 01:
The question is, is there a reason to omit germanium?

[00:06:19] Speaker 01:
And the second reason, I think the first is you've got alternatives and that's all that has to be disclosed.

[00:06:25] Speaker 01:
But the second reason

[00:06:26] Speaker 01:
is certainly stronger than that.

[00:06:30] Speaker 01:
It's that you have an alloy that contains germanium and it is compared to an alloy that does not contain germanium.

[00:06:37] Speaker 01:
I said it backwards.

[00:06:39] Speaker 01:
You have an alloy that does not contain germanium.

[00:06:41] Speaker 01:
It's compared to argentium and that's the alloy that does contain germanium and it provides advantages.

[00:06:49] Speaker 01:
The alloy that is germanium free is

[00:06:54] Speaker 01:
has better corrosion resistance, and it has better hardness.

[00:07:00] Speaker 01:
And that's a reason that one ordinary skill in the art would omit germanium.

[00:07:05] Speaker 01:
I mean, the analogy that comes to my mind when I think about this is a recipe for a cake.

[00:07:11] Speaker 01:
If you've got a recipe that one has whole eggs and the other has just egg whites,

[00:07:18] Speaker 01:
And the reported result is the one with just the egg whites rises better.

[00:07:24] Speaker 01:
Well, that's a reason to omit the yolks.

[00:07:26] Speaker 01:
And that's what we're looking at here.

[00:07:28] Speaker 01:
We have a comparison, a direct comparison in the specification.

[00:07:36] Speaker 03:
And there are... Will you give us an appendix site for what you're going through right now?

[00:07:42] Speaker 01:
So the comparison is that

[00:07:48] Speaker 01:
Appendix 30.

[00:07:51] Speaker 01:
So the improved alloy is the alloy that is set forth in the right-hand column of Appendix 29.

[00:08:07] Speaker 01:
And you'll see it does not contain germanium.

[00:08:12] Speaker 01:
And then alloy A

[00:08:15] Speaker 01:
is urgent the specification discloses that are gentium includes silver these are sterling's these are all star so so them ninety two point five percent silver includes copper and germanium and then you can see that the improved alloy outperforms the germanium containing alloy in

[00:08:41] Speaker 01:
corrosion resistance, and it's much, much better from hardness.

[00:08:45] Speaker 03:
What are you, can you, that's what I'm not seeing.

[00:08:48] Speaker 03:
There are just too many numbers that I'm not understanding.

[00:08:50] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry.

[00:08:50] Speaker 03:
Is there any narrative in this presentation that explains that?

[00:08:54] Speaker 03:
Do we have that?

[00:08:56] Speaker 01:
So, if you'll look at the appendix, page 25.

[00:09:01] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:09:07] Speaker 01:
So corrosion resistance and hardness results are provided in figure three.

[00:09:11] Speaker 01:
as indicated, the improved alloy blank remains substantially unblemished.

[00:09:16] Speaker 01:
The improved alloy substantially outperforms traditional sterling.

[00:09:21] Speaker 01:
And comparable.

[00:09:24] Speaker 03:
This has got to do with the absence of presence of germanium.

[00:09:28] Speaker 01:
Because the alloy A, as disclosed in the specification at appendix 23, is argentium.

[00:09:40] Speaker 01:
And it's a commercial alloy.

[00:09:43] Speaker 03:
Let me find it.

[00:09:43] Speaker 03:
Where are you referring to?

[00:09:44] Speaker 01:
Appendix 23.

[00:09:46] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:09:48] Speaker 03:
The first agenda.

[00:09:49] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:09:50] Speaker 03:
Where does it say?

[00:09:52] Speaker 01:
Under example two, one, two, three, four, five lines down.

[00:09:57] Speaker 01:
Yeah.

[00:09:58] Speaker 01:
92.7% silver, 5.5% copper, 1.8% germane.

[00:10:05] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:10:06] Speaker 01:
So that's what's being tested.

[00:10:08] Speaker 01:
Those are the test results that are being reported in Figure 3.

[00:10:13] Speaker 01:
Figure 3, the L numbers

[00:10:18] Speaker 01:
Closer to 100 is whiter.

[00:10:23] Speaker 01:
So you can see if you compare the preferred embodiment alloy to alloy-A after the corrosion exposure, the improved embodiment.

[00:10:32] Speaker 03:
So are you saying that all of this proves that free from germanium has a specific advantage here?

[00:10:39] Speaker 01:
I'm saying that one skilled in the art

[00:10:44] Speaker 01:
look at Figure 3 and say, if I leave germanium out, I'm going to get better results.

[00:10:51] Speaker 01:
It's that simple.

[00:10:52] Speaker 01:
And that is a reason to omit germanium.

[00:10:55] Speaker 01:
It's not any more complicated than that.

[00:10:57] Speaker 01:
You've got an alloy that has no germanium, and you have an alloy that has germanium, and they're one column apart in the test results.

[00:11:09] Speaker 01:
And that's a reason to emit germane.

[00:11:12] Speaker 01:
There's nothing in the words required.

[00:11:34] Speaker 03:
Good morning.

[00:11:35] Speaker 04:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:11:36] Speaker 04:
May it please the court?

[00:11:37] Speaker 03:
Could you just start with this last point?

[00:11:39] Speaker 03:
Because I'm finding it difficult to follow.

[00:11:42] Speaker 04:
Sure, I will.

[00:11:43] Speaker 04:
If I could just to remind this court that the standard of review in this case is substantial evidence.

[00:11:49] Speaker 04:
And the substantial evidence in this case supports the board's findings with respect to lack of written descriptive support.

[00:11:56] Speaker 04:
And to this last point, looking at that chart that was having all of the alloys listed in

[00:12:04] Speaker 04:
What I hear my friend at the table say is that because of this testing against these other alloys, somehow that would reasonably convey to a person of Organic Skin Lear that a alloy that is free of germanium is somehow

[00:12:21] Speaker 04:
shown here, that they would know that that's the claim to invention.

[00:12:24] Speaker 04:
That it's advantageous.

[00:12:25] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:12:26] Speaker 04:
I'm not sure why counsel would say that, but just looking at this chart, there are other alloys in here, alloys B, C, D, and E, that also lack germanium.

[00:12:38] Speaker 04:
The only alloy in this chart that has germanium is the alloy A. And even according to this chart, there are

[00:12:46] Speaker 04:
preferential results, so to speak, from those other alloys that don't have germanium.

[00:12:52] Speaker 04:
For example, alloy A, which has the germanium, is harder, so it has a more hardness than alloys B and C, which lack germanium.

[00:13:04] Speaker 04:
Also, B, D, and E, which do not have germanium, tarnish less than traditional A and C,

[00:13:13] Speaker 04:
that have, I'm sorry, A has germanium and C doesn't, excuse me, but B, D, and E lack germanium.

[00:13:21] Speaker 04:
So there's a lot of things that could be going on here that have nothing to do with germanium.

[00:13:25] Speaker 04:
It could be the composition of other elements in there, whether it be the palladium or the copper.

[00:13:30] Speaker 04:
So no person of Ornésca and Liart would look at this and reasonably say, oh yes, it's the germanium that is driving this.

[00:13:37] Speaker 04:
There's nothing here to do that.

[00:13:39] Speaker 03:
OK, can I turn you to maybe a more legal question in terms of the status?

[00:13:45] Speaker 03:
And it seems like nobody is saying that he didn't have possession of an alloy free of germanium.

[00:13:52] Speaker 03:
Correct, Your Honor.

[00:13:53] Speaker 03:
So what more you say, but he did not have possession of all of the germanium-free silver alloys encompassed by the claim?

[00:14:02] Speaker 04:
Yes, the claim is broader.

[00:14:04] Speaker 04:
So the thing that he is claiming, when you add up all the elements at the low end of the range, there's still 3% of what we don't know.

[00:14:14] Speaker 04:
And nothing in the specification says that it could not, would not, or should not be germanium.

[00:14:20] Speaker 04:
There's nothing that a person with a writing skill in the art

[00:14:24] Speaker 04:
reading this specification would say, oh, yes, that claim there that has that 3% gap, that wouldn't have Germanium.

[00:14:32] Speaker 04:
And so that's the point that we're trying to make.

[00:14:34] Speaker 04:
It's sort of twofold.

[00:14:35] Speaker 04:
One, the claim is not the preferred embodiment.

[00:14:38] Speaker 04:
And therefore, there's nothing telling someone.

[00:14:41] Speaker 04:
Because the percentages are all different.

[00:14:43] Speaker 04:
The percentages are different, and the elements are different.

[00:14:45] Speaker 04:
I mean, the claimed embodiment doesn't have tin, right?

[00:14:52] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry.

[00:14:52] Speaker 04:
We don't know what the tin is.

[00:14:54] Speaker 04:
And it doesn't have zinc.

[00:14:55] Speaker 04:
But the preferred alloy does.

[00:14:57] Speaker 04:
So they're just different.

[00:15:00] Speaker 04:
even if you look at the preferred embodiment and say, okay, maybe someone would say, that's free of germanium, you wouldn't do that for what is actually claimed here.

[00:15:09] Speaker 04:
And that is what we're looking at, whether or not the claimed invention would reasonably compare to a person who ran a cigarette that the claimed invention was free of germanium at the time of the filing.

[00:15:20] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:15:20] Speaker 02:
Latif, if you compare

[00:15:24] Speaker 02:
Alloy A and the preferred alloy.

[00:15:28] Speaker 02:
Alloy A has germanium.

[00:15:32] Speaker 02:
The preferred alloy does not have germanium.

[00:15:36] Speaker 04:
Correct, Your Honor.

[00:15:38] Speaker 02:
So isn't that enough?

[00:15:42] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:15:42] Speaker 02:
To support the argument that there are alternatives.

[00:15:47] Speaker 02:
There is one that has germanium.

[00:15:50] Speaker 02:
There's one that does not.

[00:15:52] Speaker 02:
I claim the one that does not.

[00:15:54] Speaker 04:
Right, but it's more than saying other alternatives.

[00:15:57] Speaker 04:
You have to say, is there a reason to exclude this thing that you want?

[00:16:00] Speaker 02:
Well, the reason to exclude is the fact that there are alternatives disclosed.

[00:16:06] Speaker 02:
So you disclose one alternative that has it, one alternative that doesn't have it.

[00:16:13] Speaker 02:
And then you claim the one that does not by asserting a negative limitation.

[00:16:19] Speaker 02:
Why is that a problem?

[00:16:21] Speaker 04:
Because based on the case law, if you're going to have a negative limitation, you have to show something about reasonably conveying possession of that negative limitation.

[00:16:31] Speaker 04:
And the way to do that are through reasons to exclude.

[00:16:33] Speaker 04:
And there are several ways that you can do that.

[00:16:35] Speaker 04:
You could expressly say, free of.

[00:16:38] Speaker 04:
You do not have to.

[00:16:39] Speaker 04:
There could be an inherency there where a person knows you would not have this particular element.

[00:16:46] Speaker 04:
But then the case law also says you would show disadvantages to having that element germanium, or you would show there's a distinction between the germanium.

[00:16:57] Speaker 04:
And just having it listed does not show those things.

[00:17:00] Speaker 02:
What about infight?

[00:17:01] Speaker 02:
Infight shows alternatives.

[00:17:03] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:17:04] Speaker 02:
And the negative limitation said, well, I don't have three of the four alternatives.

[00:17:15] Speaker 02:
My claim does not have those three.

[00:17:17] Speaker 02:
And that was sufficient.

[00:17:18] Speaker 04:
Well, there were standards that were brought into the record in NFI that showed why they were distinct.

[00:17:24] Speaker 04:
There were figures in NFI that showed why those particular signals were distinct from the other signals.

[00:17:30] Speaker 02:
It was more than that.

[00:17:31] Speaker 02:
But aren't these two alloys distinct?

[00:17:33] Speaker 04:
Well, there's no showing, right?

[00:17:35] Speaker 04:
That the thing that it's whether.

[00:17:37] Speaker 02:
Well, you said the formulation is different.

[00:17:40] Speaker 02:
Isn't that enough?

[00:17:41] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry, Your Honor.

[00:17:42] Speaker 04:
I didn't hear that last part.

[00:17:43] Speaker 02:
Isn't it enough to just show

[00:17:45] Speaker 02:
that alloy A has a certain formulation and the preferred alloy has a different formulation, that's distinct.

[00:17:53] Speaker 04:
Well, two answers to that.

[00:17:55] Speaker 04:
First, it's not enough in this case because the preferred alloy is not the claimed alloy.

[00:17:59] Speaker 04:
That's the first point.

[00:18:00] Speaker 04:
But assuming that that would be enough that they're not the same, it's not the claimed invention, you still need something to provide, adequately describe why you wouldn't have that particular

[00:18:15] Speaker 04:
element, like why you wouldn't have germanium.

[00:18:17] Speaker 04:
It's not enough to just say this has germanium and that doesn't have germanium.

[00:18:20] Speaker 00:
Someone reading the spec wouldn't have a reason to know, well, why wouldn't I use germanium, especially, Your Honor, because- When a person is skilled in the art, just apply practical knowledge in that situation and say, we have an alloy A, we have germanium, but not in these.

[00:18:36] Speaker 00:
Maybe I should try these.

[00:18:38] Speaker 00:
Well- See if it's better or worse.

[00:18:40] Speaker 04:
I think the answer to both of your questions, Judge Lynn Jadrina, is that

[00:18:45] Speaker 04:
That would work if everything else in those alloys were the same, but that's not the case here.

[00:18:50] Speaker 04:
If you look at my briefing on page six, there's a chart that kind of breaks down what are the elements within each of these alloys.

[00:18:57] Speaker 04:
So even in the preferred alloy that you're talking about in alloy A, a person with orniose skill in the eye could say, oh, did it perform better because of the lack of germanium, or is it because of the palladium?

[00:19:09] Speaker 04:
Alloy A, which has the germanium, has no palladium whatsoever.

[00:19:15] Speaker 04:
Could it have been the tin?

[00:19:16] Speaker 04:
There is no tin there.

[00:19:17] Speaker 04:
There's nothing here to reasonably convey to Percival-Roney-Skinley that it is the germanium that is driving why that was somehow better or worse.

[00:19:27] Speaker 04:
So that's the problem that we have here.

[00:19:29] Speaker 04:
But again, I just want to remind this court, the bigger issue is that this preferred embodiment that we're spending time talking about is not the claimed invention.

[00:19:39] Speaker 04:
Just you could full stop there and say, we don't even need to move on to this point about whether or not there are the advantages or disadvantages.

[00:19:51] Speaker 03:
And if there are enough.

[00:19:52] Speaker 03:
I have one question, just because I'm caught up in this chart.

[00:19:56] Speaker 03:
Sure.

[00:19:56] Speaker 03:
So if we were going to look at this and say, again,

[00:20:00] Speaker 03:
Forgetting your preferred embodiment argument.

[00:20:03] Speaker 03:
If we're just going to look at it and say, well, if this one, the preferred alloy doesn't have it, and alloy A does, so that shows it's free of that.

[00:20:13] Speaker 03:
The same could be said for all the other alloys, because they're showing, all the other alloys show indium.

[00:20:19] Speaker 03:
Is there anything in this claim that deals with indium?

[00:20:23] Speaker ?:
No.

[00:20:23] Speaker 03:
Would we assume that a negative limitation, therefore, should be read into the claims because they're shown in those and not in preferred embodiment?

[00:20:33] Speaker 04:
Not based on this particular specification.

[00:20:35] Speaker 04:
I would say there would need to be more than that.

[00:20:38] Speaker 04:
My point about this whole thing is that you can't look at the makeup of these alloys and say, well, that's the reason.

[00:20:44] Speaker 04:
Someone would absolutely know.

[00:20:45] Speaker 04:
You need to adequately describe in some way that would reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art

[00:20:53] Speaker 04:
that you want to have this negative limitation of free of, whether it's indium or germanium.

[00:21:01] Speaker 04:
If there are no further questions, I yield my time, and I please ask that you affirm the board's decision.

[00:21:06] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:21:20] Speaker 01:
The patent officer's position here

[00:21:23] Speaker 01:
is just not squareable with ENFIE.

[00:21:25] Speaker 01:
In ENFIE, the excluded negative limitations were in a table.

[00:21:35] Speaker 01:
They're just different signals listed in a table.

[00:21:38] Speaker 01:
There's no other explanation with it.

[00:21:41] Speaker 01:
And that was the central holding of the ENFIE decision, that providing alternatives without any explanation of advantages or disadvantages was sufficient.

[00:21:53] Speaker 01:
And that's what the government is saying is missing here, that there has to be some way that we would absolutely know that the germanium was what caused the advantage.

[00:22:04] Speaker 01:
And that's not the standard.

[00:22:05] Speaker 01:
The standard is not proof to a scientific certainty that germanium is what caused the presence or absence of germanium was what caused the advantage or disadvantage.

[00:22:18] Speaker 01:
The standard is, with one of ordinary skill in the art,

[00:22:21] Speaker 01:
have a reason to exclude Germanium looking at the specification.

[00:22:26] Speaker 01:
And you've got.

[00:22:27] Speaker 03:
Would you say the same about those other alloys that are in the other?

[00:22:33] Speaker 03:
chart that were used in the other alloys.

[00:22:36] Speaker 03:
Absolutely.

[00:22:36] Speaker 03:
So you should, that free of indium.

[00:22:39] Speaker 01:
If I had a claim for free of indium, I would say that that is supported.

[00:22:44] Speaker 01:
And to my mind, the government's position is that those other alloys, the comparison to these other things, somehow camouflages the comparison between the germanium and the.

[00:23:10] Speaker 01:
No, sir.

[00:23:10] Speaker 00:
If you have to go to a specification that assumes things.

[00:23:16] Speaker 01:
I don't think you have to assume anything here, Your Honor.

[00:23:20] Speaker 00:
You just have to be arguing that if it's not disclosed, that you don't have to.

[00:23:27] Speaker 00:
You can assume that it's not a limitation.

[00:23:32] Speaker 01:
No, sir.

[00:23:35] Speaker 01:
My position is that if the

[00:23:39] Speaker 01:
limitation the negative limitation here free of germanium if one of ordinary skill in the art would reading the specification have a reason to omit germanium then that limitation is supported that's I mean that's it there's no there's nothing else there

[00:23:56] Speaker 01:
But that is a specification-bound argument.

[00:23:59] Speaker 01:
There has to be a reason, a rationale in the specification for that.

[00:24:04] Speaker 01:
And in this case, that rationale is one, the disclosure of two different embodiments, and two, an advantage that one of those embodiments exhibits over the other.

[00:24:19] Speaker 01:
I want to say this, because we haven't touched on it at all.

[00:24:24] Speaker 01:
that was presented below that the board just pooped.

[00:24:31] Speaker 01:
The fact that Argentium is famous

[00:24:37] Speaker 01:
Argentium is an absolutely famous alloy.

[00:24:40] Speaker 01:
And I bring that up because one of the arguments here is, well, all these other alloys, the comparisons to these other alloys would somehow camouflage the advantage that the preferred embodiment has relative to the Germanium-based alloy.

[00:24:57] Speaker 01:
And I think that's a mistake.

[00:24:59] Speaker 01:
And the reason that it's wrong is because Argentium is so well-known in the art, it's like

[00:25:07] Speaker 01:
And when you make a comparison to something that's exceptionally well known, that's going to focus the attention of the people of skill in the art reading this.

[00:25:18] Speaker 01:
So that comparison to Arginitium stands out.

[00:25:22] Speaker 01:
And that was the extrinsic evidence that was offered and disregarded.

[00:25:27] Speaker 01:
And it changes how you have to look at the comparison in chart three.

[00:25:36] Speaker 01:
Any other questions?

[00:25:37] Speaker 03:
Thank you.