have to date one one that's just a matter of public record what is your prime issue tickets think you can win on the right we were saying the same thing that they thought so with respect to claim twenty nine the issue is literal infringement and you argue with respect to that that that that the claim should require a rectangular frame that goes  yeah he he was pretty clear he said one in thirty two but and so i would judge that i assume that means he must have found doctrine of accordance as a matter of law infringement of the doctrine of a clause as a matter of law your present counsel shaking his head yes ok and my reading of the record is that there was a general assumption that that coin thirty two from the standpoint of doctrine of equivalence was pretty much the same as cl one perhaps combined with claims far right so so that so the claim thirty two wasn't really separately addressed at any l but if the judge was correct as to claim line that there was infringement under the doctrine of a prevalence of a four sided carrier then it doesn't really make any difference whether it's incorrect in a claim construction claim twenty nine correct one and and by inference with respect to claim thirty two also but there can't be any doctrine of equivalence infringement because there was a prosecution history of  it doesn't say i mean i'm not even sure how you got there and carrier frame if you mean why couldn't you just construe carrier frame in light of the patent the specification the prosecution history how do you get it to be it doesn't sided so you're saying that by reference to the word around here sort of backing into a construction of carrier f as well i don't i mean i'm not sure that the district court was ruling out stern's testimony on anticipation but that's a different question in any event you're not raising the anticipation issue here on so let me ask you about the obviousness though you you say that the problem is that excluded started so therefore you had no other evidence of obviousness that you could submit but i looked at starr's report and i don't see anything in his report where he expresses an opinion on obviously his opinion is solely on infringement could a district court find equivalence with respect gage larry just read you a quote from the prosecution history which seems to disclaim something that didn't have a four sided carrier f happened to be construed this claim in the prosecution as referring to rectangular which is the his definition of around here we did here is not over that the trial judge never conducted a a claim construction process or never went through the process of those things like whether or not something must disclaimed in the prosecution history issues that then how do you not have a four sided char determine where your argument is that big that around could mean three sides exactly what the that is yet allegedly infringing device has here but yet you were cite specifically the existence of n pieces distinguish the prior art on the ground that the prior art did not have a four sided carrier frank in it and it wasn't there for ram so why doesn't the prosecution history tell us to interpret carrier frame in claim twenty nine the same way that it's interpreted inflame one and there are plenty of cases saying that when the same terms are supposed to be interpreted the same way in and in different planes sure i now the words he says you only recited to prosecution history for purposes of your interpretation of the word around but did not raise prosecution history stoppel as a defense essentially to the application the doctrine of a quiv