purpose the statement of goal or purpose is not a limitation of the client doesn't the fact that you as i understand it maybe i'm wrong that you inserted the disputed language in the preamble in response to an examiners rejection give us some the examiner and then of the family physician was that the only thing that counted was a detailed analysis of the market share in true sales figures related to and the board  whether you get anything out of the stale figures the question is whether they show any there has to be a nexus to the nature of the claimed invention which is the removal of the entire law yet or other aspects of these tiles which supposedly made them attractive which the owners corning ny says in his affidavit he doesn't say that these things are successful because they have removed the entire overlapping area he says they're successful because they still are inventions he identifies the certainty the emitted that's that's the only evidence regarding market share in this case the our position is  does not require proof necessarily producing evidence of market share gain but because of the invention because there are lots of other ways you can have commercial successes as today the numbers product was commercially successful but the affidavit our declaration that you yourself submitted appears to attribute that success to other features the in any decoration that is that really a fair assessment of what went on i may have to take a look at all of the elements that you came up and they found it was not productive given some of the legal constraints they operate under for example the show detail now so the market share increasing market share and a nexus there to we don't question that we did not we were not able to show actual numbers or market share because  information is available but as to commercial succession itself and the nexus that's what present throughout the various decorations of well there were some testimony by the employees but that wasn't supported by corroborating evidence like surveys or affidavits from customers which is that is correct so i mean nobody's denying you put forth some evidence the board didn't find that that was sufficient to establish a commercial they could but what they said was they rejected their firm examiner because we didn't have detailed market share evidence and my point is the law does not just not so limited you know you won't find anything in ruby dear that says market share and the recent more recent past our case against those should look to any secondary considerations that too narrow analysis that is not is standing in the way of that sharpie marker nation is that intermediate area between adjacent shingles where the grain will from one another or you get it for a easy grey and between what is otherwise pretty definitive shingle and what he says is the solution to achieving that sharp demarcation is cutting slot into the intermediary to remove the the overlap now when he says i think you can get away because remember these are shingles on a roof so it's not like you're up front like this and you can see the look at the figures figure and this is on a five twenty figure six which is also in our every show sort of an up close view of what i would say is preferred in mine this idea that i don't have to remove all of the intermediate area you can read some there in it but you've got to clear spacing between adjacent shingles but then when you look at figure a lab figure eleven is the shingle mounted on the roof what it appears like to the human eye when you look at that slot seventy six there's nothing there it looks as if in new glue has not proven either from the first prong is to actually demonstrate that you have a commercially successful product the evidence here is simply that we have two products offered by search and what their dollar sales were for a particular year we have no evidence of what the market is we have no evidence where the shingle sit in that market the evidence actually here suggest i'm not even sure those two shingles are actually there they're at the top of the market you know it's interesting because that was a t a two zero one two two zero five there is actually a marketing brochure from something called roofing contractor which says these are high end shingles is a comparison chart of high and shingles and while it includes a one twenty seven refers to the fact that people are purchasing these because they look like natural sleep that's not what claim one says in the preamble to give the appearance of individual plays or tiles are wholly different things and if they want to one jenkins for example does actually get closer to the plain language and he says people are buying these things because they look like individual slaves or tiles the problem is because teacher pointed out there's nothing to substantiate that that's just his unsubstantiated opinion as to overlapped area would be undesirable tablet a shingle and i come back to my point hindsight hindsight issue is not to be looked at all by itself as it is the