appears did this because it knows that the claim is invalid specifically limitations aides who i are in fact anticipated by the seagrave prior art but regardless of the reasons i will focus my arguments today on the sole remaining claim which is claims twenty of the five  single actual quince or not new fact the specification describes them as traditional and the specification also admits that the quote traditional method for increasing the queen's ladder length and ship load is to place more weight on the chassis and that is just basic physics if you want to put more weights on further out on the ladder you need to put more weight on the chassis to counterbalance the load otherwise trouble trouble tip over again this is just basic seagrave quinn in new jersey and he one provided expert declarations explaining based on the prevailing and f p a standards at the time that the secretive one hundred foot ladder would be capable of extending one hundred and ninety five feet dollars model isn't also relevant we presented evidence showing that for all of the salient features in this case those models are all the same the only features that they pointed to between those three models that are different are superficial features such as the shape of the cab and the and the capacity of the water tank none of which are claimed limitations and this is the problem in our injunction phase it's not we're not required to make an actual case of invalidity the question is a vulnerability not invalid declarations from mr saul me there was a declaration that was submitted i believe in early may excuse me early april where he provided some information about quint that he inspected and then he followed up with a supplemental declaration in which he included more information about the quit that he inspected that was the one thousand nine hundred and nine quim that supplemental declaration was a subject of litigation before the magistrate pierce moved to strike it and in its motion to strike it is stated  one of its reasons why i want to strike it that this is a piece of prior art that you want to trying to assert and we responded saying you're absolutely right this is a prior our seagrave quince that we are asserting here the magistrate overruled your objection and the evidence came in but then time there was information about the dana axles that were part of our obviousness combination as well as other actions that were known at the time information about the very important two thousand and eleven white paper industry white white paper that as part of our obviousness combinations all of that evidence was before the magistrate including voluminous expert opinion this claim charts and argumentation as to why those that evidence renders the claims either anticipated or obvious let me give you an example because you're talking in generalities but i mean below they were they were quite specific about why they thought that the ninety six and ninety seven lattimer's weren't sufficiently the ninety six and ninety seven secret letters meet the height and reach requirements of limitation age but your own expert explain it very letters are capable of reaching one hundred people one direction are not necessarily able to reach ninety feet or is on telly or ninety five without tipping over so that's just one example i guess the example being you can't just look at the picture not inspecting the ninety six and ninety seven and be sure they meet that particular limitation limitation age so how do you respond to that i mean just because the ninety nine these patents which is that prior art quins will single axles were limited to only eighty feet vertically and seventy two feet horizontally the we have our obviousness argument which means how would a person of ordinary skill in the are increased the reach and the tip load of a prior is i gave that as one example there are many examples that were appointed to in a really good opinion from below a very detailed and thorough going and another one would be i and j relating to the estimates of weight and where they said again mr solomon seems to be basing this on two pictures and not and ignored the way the latter in the counterbalancing calculations i mean so there were a lot of little details that all of which led the court below to say this expert is just speculating on all of these limitations and it doesn't feel like enough under the circumstances to meet the substantiality requirement so that your problem with me is that there's a lot of little things i understand your honor i would just point to the credibility that is the nature of his calculations are improper and don't need all that stuff whatever it's not him it's a problem with his suggestions because they found account for everything right the experts disputed the calculations and that's based on how that claim that limitation is construed that the claim construction issue i'd like to just return to the obviousness issue your honor because the obviousness combination solves that problem so in two thousand and fourteen there was only two solutions to increasing t trying to do in these claims is claim ownership of that entire nd solution simply increasing the capacity of the axle but in two thousand and fourteen that solution was obvious we pointed to the two thousand and eleven white paper in which a very influential organization was lobbying to up to thirty three thousand five hundred pounds and that's precisely what here stood they took a traditional quint i like the c grade which already had a one hundred dollars ladder and they put eight hundred and thirty three thousand and five one hundred pound axle on it precisely as the white paper  encouraged and then they filed a patent application to try to preclude all of their competitors from following that same basic obvious approach and even without a motivation to combine k s r would say that that is obvious one of the obvious to try doctoring but the white paper itself provides a motivation to combine and that was our substantial case of obviousness now they've already dropped a claim twenty of the five of the nine hundred and fifteen dollars patent which is where we made our switch our strongest case of anticipation i believe that's pretty indicative that they think the claim is invalid  pointed out with my opponent one of the key issues that the court found was that the and the libby attacks lacked any real substance to it that it had a lot of holes in a lot of speculation and the thing that i did not hear this morning and i expect i will not be able to hear is that there is no evidence or at least objective evidence that the seagraves could counterbalance a tip load of seven hundred and fifty dollars pounds when the latter was features as there was no description of what the actual vertical height or horizontal reach of the ladder was what the tip looked at capability that letter was really even when that inspection allegedly occurred that there there was no details whatsoever on that truck that was on the truck that was inspected as a result the magistrate judge correctly held there was never any inspection of the two trucks that would be for appellant's argument is that this family white paper encouraged in factories to use heavier duty axles to get more weight on the back of a truck and so you could put a single  said the fact that these new guidelines came into place would not mender the claims obvious he had the basis for that we went through below all the reasons why it would not be obvious to add a that including the you your honor just a couple points the fact that they offered thirty three thousand five hundred how to react souls is not relevant there's no evidence that they actually loaded those axles to thirty three thousand five hundred pounds there's a difference between capacity and what load you actually put on them and also the only evidence comes from a declaration from one of their own employees who merely said they offer the axle there's not even any proof that they sold equipped with that axle now the  paper shows minimum and maximum zip it shows the maximum rear axle going up to thirty three thousand five hundred dollars pounds at the time of that white paper the regulations are regulating emergency vehicles was described as a patchwork and it hindered the ability in the motivation of manufacturers to actually put thirty three thousand five hundred pounds on the rear axles because if they did that even if they were allowed to sell in the one particular state with a waiver that truck would not be able to go on federal highways and it would not be able to lock largely cross state lines which is an important part of modern you know firefighting if you have to fight a fire a forest fire for instance in a different state so we think this is substantial evidence of motivation and i disagree that  the magistrate addressed it under the proper framework because if you look at page appendix page thirty of the the report recommendation the magistrate said that we had the burden of clear and convincing evidence which is not true magistrate got that idea from peers who repeatedly argued in its briefing at oral argument that we bore a burden of clear and convincing evidence to show invalidity that is not the case we merely have to present a question of them believe to be that they are unable to show lack