compounded enter a finding indefiniteness based on a concept of a margin of error or tolerance that is nowhere in the intrinsic record turning first to the claim construction issue that the district court said that  crane but at the examiner never disputed the distinction that the prosecutors made a three sixteen but the difference between this invention and crane is that crane was a single the taschen was a light beam s technicians included in the claims correct you remove the word simultaneous from the claims right and now you argue that it should be included not know that this is the key point is that the on page a twenty two three twenty two and a three twenty three the examiner says both condition a that's a simultaneous and condition b the pre determined maximum includes if you are a time difference exam or so both conditions include a zero time difference so in changing from simultaneous you're not giving up the zero time difference it's already included in they changed the language to end the redundancy and to make clear that it's true separate detection and then at pages a three twenty nine and a three thirty they say look we're changing this to get rid of the redundancy that will be one term because you were concerned about redundancy we still spent which train because we've got two separate  nobody thought there's absolutely no evidence of that prosecution history that they were getting rid of zero time because the examiner didn't say accepting your argument just following it through about two separate detections you have could have then if that were the case you could have kept the word simultaneously in the new in the revised played language you could a set only if the time between only if they are simultaneous detection between the first and the second it potentially they could have but the problem was the examiner said it was it was redundant and so they took out simultaneous because the examiner focused on that as being redundant be gentle redundant to less than a pre determined maximum right that the examiner said that the later claim language only because the terms were redundant and the whole point is they treat the school's out the redundancy they've made a single statement with subsequent and the point is when you look at the prosecution history judge rayna it's very clear that the control or supervise it's not doing the timing detection for determining whether they're both there at the same time after they've been inserted so it's just an on off switch you can't do the controller or the supervisor we're talking about the brains  control and supervision unit and the case after case where this court has construed a means plus function claiming of a control box or control unit any similar language and said you have to disclose the structure specification has to say what it is it's not enough there proper standard and if actual find it not in the circumstance your honor because the question is whether there is any evidence of record whatsoever that can support the notion that a skilled artisan beat the specification to by the application to remove simultaneous in response to the examiner's rejection and add subsequent it's very clear that there's a disclaimer of simultaneous and there's very clear that the expert testimony before the district work at the simultaneous we don't know but all the experts said that simultaneous means the time from zero seconds to a tolerance value so is that what we're down to the district courts that we don't know what the tolerance value huge difference you are we're not talking about something that's meaningless we're talking about the tolerance could be so big that we really don't know what is subsequent and what is simultaneous plus tolerance that was then just records factional fighting and all of the extrinsic evidence that the judge said well our local rule say you can't submit another expert report at reconsideration if you could have submitted it to start with and there it was clear i mean we've made the assertions of indefiniteness from the beginning on this basis we've submitted  claim construction that the patent is indefinite and i don't want to hear argument on it and because it could have told me all about it during our entire regular process you didn't do that i don't want more factual dispute the only purpose of the summary judgment process at this point is i found that the district were never said that it was excluding that but the first declaration which nobody challenges includes that so for example there are experts mr bayne jack concedes in his expert report appendix for sixty expert said it could be one millisecond or half a second is not what he said that was the question it was asked and he said look i'm not even answer that question he said but you have to look at is the contacts what's the device what's going on somebody skilled in new york would understand the toler a summary judgment issue for the jury not for the judge to decide because there was nothing in the intrinsic record that goes to this tolerance issue if i could turn for a minute into the into force function element if i could direct the court's attention to appendix fifty