however there is a boundary between the two but to address the point i think you're getting to the core disregarded something that clorox actually admitted on this first claim when the limitations close quote and of course provides no analysis or explanation for its conclusion that appendix a page fourteen that this limitation means quote the passage way extends all the way from the highest point of them out of the bottle close quote container of the clorox bottle and the nonaligned non fluid connection does not change this this this determination the pats off talks repeatedly and in critical places about the fact that the purpose is to establish a fluid connection to be able to pump fluid from the reservoir of the container for dispersal of the pump cat in connection with this issue the meaning of this term and again for that reason believe it in an issue of material fact regarding the meaning of this disputed term exists and precludes summary judgment as far as the court's failure to consider certain evidence likely would have been better form would have ruled not capture ever also this report in addition to ignoring for example if you look at its decision appendix page just want to twenty one they don't even discuss dictionary definition so they totally ignore that and as far as the expert testimony they reference it in footnote two leaves page tectonics page ten all the knowledge is that there was expert testimony but they don't provide any analysis or explain why parties instructed the court that we had no dispute as to whether there was special construction required of these terms and that the terms could be given their place in ordinary need that's what the court did and between the container passageway and the pump passageway is a necessary condition if the two do not create a sealing agent the two will not couple that seems the straightforward plain ordinary interpretation of the only if to seventeen and then they have the full photographs at that appendix to twenty three to twenty four and to twenty five and it's a particular if you look for example that to twenty five you will see the  i take it that perhaps i should move to the third element then the city and this is the extend from the city extend from limitation and before i begin discussing  opinion he describes see frustration of not being able to suck up the last few drops of liquid in the box and the way in which the cross bar to bottle addresses that but that is not the problem that this pick up to above the entrance of the container mouth so we're talking about the wall fashioned spray bottle in which you have a bottle and then you have the the pump mechanism and dangling from the relatively slow process the purpose of this patent the innovation described in this patent is to make the assembly of big cap onto the block in the manufacturing plant easier so that is the the purpose of the the patented technology and the language that the court uses says that the hadley uses to describe that in plain one tripartite test has been met and they've completely overlooked the way now with respect to the melted limitation of the way it is so very different with the through holes two of the three legs of the tripartite test missing first of all the purpose of the of the limitation is to ensure the result that there test secondly because the of the manufacturing you no longer has simply a pipe that ends at the mouth and then this somehow m want to address but that is the basis upon which he ruled on this motion the question is this is a rare unusual uncommon case if we have now gone back and looked at three hundred that included for example retaining clorox is expert consultant the person who assisted in the design of this bottle to serve as their only expert witness and then refusing to connects the fluid connection that's what i've been finest that's been my point you look at the fact that in the abstract less three lines of the abstract it talks about the dispenser permits if you would arrange within the eighteen a problem with it seventeen eighteen times but one of the problems containers have is pulling up the liquid product stored within the container when the pump is operated so clearly one of the issues contemplated by this invention is being able to disperse a liquid and it makes no sense that the device can be in a fluid connection surely can be aligned in a non food connection the fact that  as far as abseil and this pertains to the ho ho really has nothing to do with this if one looks at page one fifty seven of the appendix we can see that the cap and the container they were the ones who initially opposed are using his using them as an expert we engage in all this motion practice in that the end we had a hearing on april fifth two thousand sixteen and i sent a letter to panix page light of six a reference is that after the hearing it was clear the court was going to contemplate allowing caps for again another expert and that's when they came in and they said ok you can consider you can use mr foster's declaration for initiating this with a geisha indeed section two eighty five is supposed to create a chilling effect and this is exactly the kind of case that should have been sold long ago with respect to thank you thank you both