communicate between the judges and lawyers largely because we don't have that in person contact so please listen carefully for when a judge starts talking they're going to be trying to suggest that there was some type of miss application of the appropriate safeguards of standards for summary judgment and you know whether or not it was because of the concurrent markman the fact and i remains is that there was an incorrect focus on its expert testimony but focus on the intrinsic record when we were discussing the written scripture and issue and i think that's an instance that shows the again the failure to fall proper and disregard the entirety of our expert testimony even where it had no connection to the alleged error that intel had identified in terms of the methodology used by our record and we think that viewing everything in light most favorable to not move and that the testimony identified by intel doesn't really state what they are trying to portray it as stating dr badger's that they considered the claims you know that he looked at the claims but if you look at the questions that he was being presented with they almost i think in every instance were based on snippets or isolated portions of the specification and even in the one instance where they were discussing about using all four you know columns of text i mean this is a very concise and dense patent there's a lot of information in that in the specification but even that that question is still admitted numerous figures it was the question was you know looking best that's essence of that is decoration self it never once points to the claims as description you know bootstrapping she well and i think his confusion as not being a lawyer is  understandable optically when you read the transcript but having set aside his testimony the district court went on to make you know a number of factual findings and these were concluded they were descriptions of the prior art and therefore by definition do not disclose a claim invention and there wasn't any evidence that was provided to support that conclusion intel had not made that argument and i think it's wrong factually and i also think it's wrong as a matter of law here the path and suit are taking existing architecture and optimizing how can how can be used to improve performance and it's essentially combining different aspects of things that are are are known and now i'm not conceding and i don't believe that the particularly stands out was conflating the standard for naval meant with written scripts and intel repeatedly criticized the pennsy for not disclosing how certain things could be achieved or how they could be done and that also found its way into the district court's opinion blow and that's really not the standard for for written scripts and until i was free to challenge and that kind of segues into the nd thing that i want to discuss is that there were some believe issues with how intel approached this dispute and briefing and i position where we did not have the chance to provide you know expert testimony or really any meaningful chance to respond to that argument and we try to to raise this during in significant detail and identify pacifically arguments made by both sides and the evidence submitted by both sides including the expert opinion of intel's experts and although he ultimately exercise discretion evidence supports that finding and we don't know what a person's skill is yes or so i think that i would disagree with the promise of the question in the following way honor which is  one is that the court is relying on its experience and knowledge to determine the understanding of a photo in the remainder of this section which begins at the bottom of page a seven to meet with the part the proceeds that which is his detail recitation of all the arguments of the evidence presented by class control and by and tell systematically going through each piece of the specification and the see how we can not send this case back to make everything three findings about a person you are i would i would submit that you can't and there's a couple of reasons for that one is because the judge said that he was applying his knowledge experience starting with the section at the bottom of page seventeen if we have valuing what he that alone would be sufficient to find that there is no written description here and we know that because we have not heard anything from the other side that would actually identify anywhere set aside all of the procedural arguments that they made even if we were to give them full credit for their expert's opinion even if we were given full credit for all the arguments they're trying to make now that they didn't make below they still have not pointed anywhere in this record or you would find the critical element of the claim which is the reading and writing or sion of the page in the particular way that is claimed so if we were to look at the district court's critically to this court on appeal that would show anywhere in this specifications that the inventor possessed the concept of doing the operation necessary to move data between the two buffers and the man moree at the portion of a page level which is the critical aspect of these claims so whatever your honour's might think about their arguments with respect to one and the additional the judgment of invalidity for lack of description and there are with respect to those findings there was no dispute below the level of ordinary skill in the arts and the district court did systematically go through each piece of evidence the flash control had relied upon and determined that aspect of the claims actually performing the flame function at a portion of a page levels required is not anywhere in the evidence they cited even when the district court didn't consider the expert testimony admissions that their expert and that's where as i would your honor i would take a step back and look at what's actually being claimed here with actually being clean here is a very specific message for moving data between a nonvolatile memory or a reading and writing data i should say to nonvolatile memory using a specific configuration of structures where you're actually reading and writing out a portion of the page and specification while it is very thin to just that that's the thing that's the efficiency improvement that the patent this directed to and the clean outline a very specific configuration of those elements and been nothing identified on appeal in any of the occasion and any of the figures or even in the expert opinion that would actually undermine that district court judgment based on the recitation of all the the back part of the opinion where the district court made some additional finding for example counsel said if we look at a twenty two dollars that the district court wrongly concluded that the command read by out of page and right bite out of page you are in the prior art and that that was some sort of factual determination made by the district court i think that is a misreading of the district court's opinion so if we look at a twenty with the district court was doing was responding to an argument made by swash control that was the this was the some sort of written description support for the idea that you could do something at a level of granularity below page and we know that because in the very next sentence which is not referred to by counsel for fast control the district court goes on to say as the invention claims a more efficient implementation of the commands in the context that piece of evidence i think even if we were to look at the portion of the opinion where the court makes these additional finding the findings are not some sort of new fact they are attempting to respond to arguments made by flash control and in this case i think explaining something that is really beyond dispute which is reading and writing are known but here the invention is doing that with a level of regularity below the unless your honour's have any additional questions my final point would be if we were to look at each each piece of evidence cited by flash control as the district court the fundamental failing identify how you would know that this person that this inventor had to that shouldn of a portion of a page which is the critical element of the claim and that family is the judgment of the district court reply and now saying that there's a lack of any evidence in the record to support these new findings i mean that's exactly that's precisely the prejudice that we are trying to highlight for this court kind of the so what part in our reply and even in our opening brief we point to figure twelve for example as providing support in the notations below it talks about three different argument ok that's the last case the matter will stand submitted like to thank both counsel and since this is the last oral argument in which i will morning i am