third issue that we did not have adequate showing for leave to him in our complaint first let me address the issue of obviousness the mate there's two cases that the underlying court relied on to make a decision that our when i do something with my five year old my three year old needs to be occupied if i do use my three year old some sort of a device that mirrored friedman pattern that showed not only the direction the exact vector which way she was to go to find that element like the freeman patent was designed to do for blind people to quickly find what they're looking for my three year old will be done with that game in no time flat whatever i'm doing with my five year old you have to wait compared to our patent our patent is a game that uses triangulation and it doesn't have the direct vectors in the quickly leading elements that the freeman has there are different animals entirely the purpose of them is different our purpose of our pattern was to teach in to use deductive reasoning skills and so first i think the court's reliance on that was that and said they will only major it when it goes inside of a twenty foot radius inside of a three foot radius but that's not true for those signals are constantly mazing the difference between that f w e w and when it goes into that twenty fo radius it's kinda reports a different signal but it's constantly measuring just like ours this so do you know exactly the freeman patent on that there's three things that different technology entirely the freeman  there's no game in that it's helping in the purpose was to help blind people find something so that patents different for are you know you're in the twenty's you don't know which is which twenty get it until you start moving and you know i'm still twenty which wa you get that kind of triangulation is new different has a game and that's the purpose of arson is to have a game you helps kids use their deductive reasoning skills to find something so if i understand what you're saying is technology that was used here was known technology and what you were doing in the invention here was applying it to a hide and seek correct and inside of our patent even though the court only recognized there were two prior patents disclose the patent examiner did not rubber stamp our patent application patent examiner actually was given five plus about four different brochures and so the underlying district court either missed or didn't see the fact there was actually nine different and says we we don't want the kind of functions or the kind of high technology actually says that inside of the hobby pat it rejects the novelty of a transmitter receiver microprocessor disclosing your specifications for performing the calculating function as a microprocessor yes i soon that microprocessors somehow programmed to perform those functions of calculating  first distance calculating second distance and calculating the difference between the feedback and differences exactly and so that microprocessor specification disclose how the microprocessors programmed and to perform invention was informing and does not necessarily true it's actually a delta change a movement a shift and the same thing they the misconstrued the the the  the claim to be a greater than or less than and that's not what it what it was as far as how the microprocessor worked the court also said that there was a calculation of actual distance and that's not true either there's and twenty feet when you get strong enough both of them are outside then you know twenty feet and so the lower level court said that well there's these definitive points and it's only calculating the three in a twenty feet radius but that's not true those those those processors inside of the jack still just like our help are constantly getting a signal and receiving a single in interpreting that signal and when it reaches that point that three foot radius of that twenty foot radius of that microprocessor rescinding  shelf and they come in and they do exactly the same things that we're doing a hi nancy doll out there with the remote controlled unit even stealing some of the same terms like you're cold you're getting warmer you found me it's in the terms patented no good point your honor but it goes to the nature of the obviousness they were trying to target what we were successfully not only  patent actually selling on the shelf and popping it out right including including their letters where they're saying their attorney hey you know it's going to work or not you know we have a shot at making things all they have and they did it they ripped it off so many children's games for the knowable past when a child is getting a hint from someone it generally falls into you technological use of those those patents were different and i believe we've outlined that pretty clearly in our in our brief as far as why the invalid calling our patent invalid because of those prior uses is incorrect  far as the next issue the infringement issue there's no dispute that the carrier girl literally infringes on the vast majority of all the elements inside a claim on the one issue as is calculating means  and the only calculating means as a as i've discussed earlier you know it's based on the strength of the signals that it's using and the lower court misconstrue this as far as it being a transmitter there is a and in some object there's a seeker unit the speaker unit is calculating the distance between the speaker and the transmitter inside the object and then the sister unit is communicating when when you're getting close to that object and it'll send different signals depending on how close you are to the object that's that's how i read co kneejerk reaction is if you examine or not only look at the ads that we give them but also additional patents and such as i am sneaky and just determined that ours was sufficiently different anough to award us a pat because of our mechanics of our patent because of what our purpose was and inside the file wrapper their efforts to make sure that ours are sufficiently different yet notwithstanding recognizing those prior patents that are very similar i think it strengthens our case for a valid path that being said then we have the challenge of infringement and as far as jackson friends going on there don't think about that one further rather than just comparing with a fixed distance as was done unless all the work correctly pointed out if the jacks product was comparable to anything it had nothing to do with four fifty seven but had much more in common with either of the chimp went out the sneak and peak levels felt the pattern and so the the point is that the only thing that they were adding if they were adding anything particular the facts are on all fours with the supreme court for any case are where you took the ceasar know feature and you combined it with the the other features to make it obvious and the supreme court hel made that getting back to infringement on your device is calculating and initial distance between the seeker unit and the transmitter right and then you should just be trying to reach calculate each time the times it even tells you leaving multiple inside twenty feet and then your chair very dull provides a new and different indication some new signal to the to the holder of the handheld unit is doing it it's simply you could argue backwards it's a derivative result but what it's doing is simply still doing the same thing of taking one distance vision and taking it against the three fold in bred criteria and simply placing it into instead of three or one it's places too but it's still you're not suddenly magically creating an ability to compare with the different systems there's simply no memory there simply no calculating means there's nothing to allow it to make any comparisons and in particular it's why the clean limitation of a relative change is not occur it's not doing any relative change all it's doing is setting forth what it first what you just said in trying to get back to your question on the chin as far as the confusion on bill freeman i don't feel that there should be any confusion with a child who has two legs i will know there is definitely a shift in where they're at you know basis change two points compared to a fixed object so there is tremulous action when they move around with that receiver unit and they get different signals they're having two to six different points on the straight that's like taking something around their neck and just pulling them there's no game of that that you're pointing directly where this way that that's that's a completely different animal what's new though i mean kids to use something that's safe and you get them in a game that doesn't require adult involvement and have them in something weird and adding to their reading skills of where they are income in combination to a new location which is exactly what jack did after the l are successful product on the shelves and did the same thing as far as the the other issue that the council raid as far as changing the district and changing the calculation between it and a first distance of the second distance and trying to figure out you know is there as the person what move four feet and the last time we did the calculation and there wouldn't be an infringement of this claim is that right that that could be an argument however their goal does with f w in the b w signals constantly getting stronger and weaker each time even though they're outside of a twenty foot radius those signals are changing each and every time even though