thank you mr doing in our final case the day's burn versus black and decker and we have jurisdiction to hear this bill we said that serving cases usually you have to take care to make sure that everything is wrapped up into a final judgment before you come here on  proceed with the rest your argument the district court area by not hearing whether a reasonable jury based on the evidence that mr presented could return a verdict of infringement on behalf of mr hill said the district court ignore the evidence that mr claim that the court to find even if we accept the proposition that that there's a surface here and we still have to figure out what generally playing i mean to crack either we do or we have to ask a district judge to figure it out forever we're not we're not here saying who the words leader is the definition of player is if you simply look at the dictionary definition as as is essentially both parties have the definition of plain or if there's you if you take for instance a paper and use butter to live has to have a plane or surface it is a wine in a plane it has to actually lose the work guide structure and that actually that can form because i want to tie you down here and your appeal seems to address all of the claims of this particular patent but you really focusing on what thirty nine through forty three or forty two forty three theory you're talking you say any two points in a line well that's the definition of a plane and what were we were saying is that the that the word is not fully planar and so the definition means lives and we're saying that that's not what is required there's no definition that anyone supply that says that the word plane or mean solid and so it disturbed core with it when it talked about the openness the judges both is in on that particular service is planned because if you but does it have a surface that is planar you're defining the plane or part of that paper clip with a round contour by using something else not the the paperclip standing alone as having it itself having a plainer surface in other words the planar surface on that paperclip could vary depending upon how you change the angle of whatever you're measuring it by it doesn't have the planar surface you're just imposing that definition on it exterior to the item the little bit it has a plane or surface a different see if i told that this way it has a plane or surface to it's defined by the flat edge and now it's got a plane or surface this is different from that plane or surface that that's how we should that is it a pleasure circuit and if i tell tis a little bit wouldn't still be on a plane or surface it still would have a surface which is lying in a plane and according to your definition that's enough so it has an infinite number of planar surfaces and that is what the claim requires it requires a generally planar surface that stabilize i don't think there's anything stabilizing about the surface on a circular object is there well i at and t has photographed in dr who since decoration show but we didn't get any thing to review other than surface and the written opinion that we have to have a decision to review have had we received a decision that we can review beyond the meaning of the term did indicate that they generally explain their service that is plain english and that's the heart of the case and is that the ordinary sense of the plain language the ordinary person to understand a flat surface to be like th that because there's an opening in the new shape structure that therefore it's not a service if you if you look at the word service  perhaps it would have been proven that but it was there was nothing it just did not include that as part of this rule just looked at and you might have cited that as error if indeed you had raised it to record as it's been presented at this court that raises the doctrine of equivalence and therefore i'd recommend you proceed with what you have appealed to the one of the things that count brought was the language of being with the team and that relates to the stabilization issue and the plain language doesn't require that the that the rotating blade in continuously in contact with the stabilisation a system that stabilizes is it going to be stabilizing or counter stabilizing giving it another object to bounce off of and and wobble as well certainly it's going to touch the plate to then it is further essentially burdened with whatever direction and therefore why wouldn't it strike the wire guide and find itself wobbling downward in a action that creates additional wobble rather than stabilizes whatever wobble might have occurred because i believe what happens is that as the strain comes across in this being the most right now it gets strikes curls up a little bit and then runs