missing that no that's that's not the only one that's missing that's what we've extensively brief but i would also point out that claim limitation a is also missing from  an indication that the coin has i appeal a plus simple so because of the structure of the claim it is necessary that the imaging happen before the coin is inserted into the holder that's what the claim covers and that is not what n b c does what's the difference the difference is on page eighty nine seventy of the joint appendix and you see very clearly get a good image of the coin so that you can look to see if it has been broken out of the holder and doctored and then resubmitted for regrading that is best done by imaging the coin directly and not through the holder an  that is not even a contention that collectors has made in that case and i would submit that if you put that through a rigorous obvious analysis we'd have a different case on appeal here the problem with the obviousness analysis hello is we don't know what the district court was think it's the overall review summary judgment that's correct your honor but there has to be some combination to review an allegedly and you might say that was an obvious modification of their prior art teaching now when they added the plus that was after the invention it's not prior art but let's assume that that was obvious that's not the invention what you have in that case i and that's not taught or suggested in prior there don't i appeal and the fact that the i appeal contributes to a fractionally higher shelden score and that's valuable information for collectors to anticipation the district court appears to have looked at each claim limitation in isolation and concluded that each claim limitation is taught somewhere in the prior art generally but the district court did not identify one signify fractional grading at all is very clear from the record we know it from at least three sources and gc's own characterization of what the star symbol means collectors of missions and also mr blake's testimony that's the evidence in terms of n b c s x one nation if you look at page eight twenty thirty seven of the record they say very clearly the designation is used to identify a coin that in the opinion of n g c is grading team displays superior i p o within that grade not a higher grade the one without a star please don't construe these designations as grades or grades within grades or not i submit that that's very clear and telling what is the significance of saying that this picketer coin has exceptional i appeal and you have a grade attached to it and you throw the star on there and say that has exceptional high appeal which the difference between that and saying that it's a better coin than the one of the mind coin at that same grade will the technical grading and determination of i appeal are two different processes it could be but but wouldn't you pay more let's put it that way for a coin that was sixty five star as opposed to sixty five yes and collectors didn't pay more for that doesn't so isn't that in the sense saying that it's better than a sixty five without a star it is better but better in what sense that's the distinction in the end you see the prior art the star designates i appeal and that is valuable to coin collectors for sure but what is missing from that is information that the collector can  precision that sixty six or sixty seven or sixty eight would but it certainly pushes you above sixty five it may or may not that's the funny thing that i wish i am sixty five probably not though it would seem to me that what you answered that you would pay more for the sixty five star indicates it pushes it above sixty five that is correct but if you knew that it was fractionally better in its technical grade and had i appeal then you would pay even more if you knew that it only has i appeal and it's a sixty five then you may not pay as much for that coin as a sixty five that has both i appeal and is fractionally better towards so there is some overlap between i appeal in technical grade on the sheldon scale and sometimes the i appeal translates into a higher fractional grade and sometimes it doesn't and that was the uncertainty in the industry before mr bla invention mr blake's method of labeling provides that added information i'm having trouble with the notion that adding fractional grading to a system that has accrued or  of rage is is much of an innovation and i think of mean you could come in with a system that said we're no longer having to have batting averages with three numbers in them we're going to have four so instead of  different from that well as i was saying your honor there was uncertainty in the art as to where and i appeal contributed to a fractionally better grade or not and the information provided in the by the inventions method  that greater certainty and so it's not just a matter of saying yes this is a better conan than that one it's adding a plus symbol because it has i appeal and b that i appeal is the kind of appeal relevant portion that scale over three numbers sixty sixty five seventy since that time era actually at that time they had something else to coin grading john really had the plus  point the star tells me within that sixty five grade i have a higher than average i'm higher than average i feel i appeal being one of the major grading factors in the sheldon scale grading technical grade in not even as part of the motion that's something one part of this evidence but i will explain when n g c says that n g c one is talking about is this are we grading separately a special i appeal category a special i appeal grade and you see it saying they it's not a special i feel great don't treat it like it's an i if you'll kind of grade it's more information it gives you more information to know that this is a better point so little and i cannot stand th indicate what that claim and mention here is not that that is incorrect if you actually look at the pattern in the interpretation the court has given at the claimed invention here when he took when it talks about i repeal related indicator it's not just an i appeal it can be anything  is both the better on the shelf and scale and better from the point of it candy is what they say is so our big invention here is using a possible which was used in the prior art sixty three sixty six sixty seven sixty eight sixty nine all of those are there and we're still using a plus symbol to differentiate those one of the things that mister their expert pointed out is even using our standard  standard form which has just that before the invention has just the grade six like an end a sixty five for example dealers were going out and putting a plus symbol on a sticker on the cac sticker the green one the green sticker is another indicator that people have been using for years in this gravy coin is above the average grade point and we believe we even have a picture of  importantly the the claim here with regard to the imaging is it can be image and used for any purpose it's not limited to the purpose of examining whether or not there's been doctoring to the point that's not what he's expanded it to every possible purpose for imaging so the n g c image since it can be used for a purpose would also violate that and if you were looking at the original patent provisional application that he's trying to use as his priority date has nothing to do doesn't mention fractional grading doesn't mention most of the things that have ended up in our final patent and if you compare the specifications in the patent to the actual claims you'll find that what's described as the invention which is only or that's the invention that's actually mentioned the specification does not appear in the at that big change happened after my client announced publicly in july four months later the pen was amended it added exactly what my client said they were going to do to the terms of the patent they were not in there before  system that was described it has nothing to do with what my client is doing we don't use or don't care about or where is the supposedly new item that he invented the patent office rejected or saying it's it's obvious any new method for grading as it is obvious the only reason that they allowed mr blix patent the only one reason is because of the term fractional grading and patent office did not know it not understand how fractional grading had been used over the years so in this instance i think that it's important not to relate that in back to the original provisional filing it just the original claims are not the support that priority date for the patent if you take away that parity my client's alleged infringing product is prior art itself and that actually ends the analysis because it's a very clean you know what the provisional says you know what the final patent says you just look at those two documents notice mute what's in those two separate documents you will not find and we detail that out both in our underlying papers and in our the big differences huge changes between the prior the original patent application for provisional application and the application was filed in july two thousand and ten which is after my client started using the alleged infringing adding the sticker with the plus on it which of what people have been doing there's no dispute that that's been happening they didn't dispute our experts testimony on that issue all he's done is take that sticker with a class and put it inside the holder  outside the and it's also undisputed that in october two thousand and seven my clients and me not to the thirty five hundred their biggest customers saying hey we're thinking about putting a plus symbol to indicate fractional grating inside of our holders so in october almost a year and a half two years for the patent provision was filed even we announced that to the world so in terms of o ousness all of these elements have already been combined in the market with very slight variation here ok i'd like to make three quick points your honor for the first is that like to address mr garret's testimony which mr meeks pointed to initially i think it's telling in this case of the actually says very likely to have a better children grade but he doesn't say necessarily and that is in fact the case it's not necessarily so that a coin with i appeal will have a higher