witness testimony is not a holding of our court you don't respond to that in your replies so i'd like to give you a chance i believe you actually respond today or that the court actually i think in both overhead door and interactive pictures it's clear that this court has acknowledged that hardware and software can be interchangeable and what the district court did was apply the weight pro example this course finding in the all cite case where glue and a rivet were found to be equivalence they certainly operate in substantially different ways and that standard would preclude hardware  explain what the essence of if little exist i mean a bicycle if you talk about the function of getting from a to b a bicycle is interchangeable with a motorcycle you could use a bicycle to get from a to b you can use a motorcycle and get it in the but the motorcycles are alternative ways of getting from a to b look let me explain the difference is known interchange ability as applied by the courts requires objective evidence at the time of the patent as opposed to litigation induced testimony regarding similary that's exactly the distinction in truman i the difference is your testimony of an expert saying yes one could be substituted for the other that is equivalence not the only way your honor in fact but this is the language that one of jenkinson uses it seems to me points exactly the opposite direction they say in our view the particular linguistic framework use less important than whether the test is probative of the essential and corey doesn't accused product or process contain elements identical or equivalent to each claimed element of the pattern the invention and that's why way of saying there are various ways to express objective evidence of as we have here of new nature changeability that reflects the view of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the pattern that they would know one structure considering all the differences in way could be used for the same function and interchangeable with the other structure the knowledge of someone skilled in the or as reflected in the current documents we cited a point relied upon control to be equivalent displayed when being in hardware and when being in software that's why that supreme court has acquitted the problems with objective no interesting philip and that again was the distinction reak so for example your honor seventeen fifty three other to ok and so the point being discussed here is that in the s d card mode the three d s takes two images stores into the s d card mode and at that point a camera calibration has already been taken care of witness confirming then s d card mode the camera calibration and and the various multiple transformations that intend to realize that i have already been taken care of and that when the emission and that's where you argue my question was did you argue did the district court muster this cess equivalency based on the s d card mode of operation you say that it page fifty one of your blue brief but there's nothing there i that's why i'm asking you for something in the record that is where the appendix the looking for that site but the bottom line your honor is if it's in the record clearly reflected here certainly nintendo has not night objected to that having been put before the court one to prove equivalence of the offsetting structures by its own admission to me to chose to rely exclusively on evidence alleged evidence of knowing interchangeability and that's reflected on page twenty of their opening brief in page twenty six of their reply brief with respect to the function way result has they took the position in this case that it has no application in the district court was incorrect to have applied it and therefore they put it no evidence existed at a particular point in time the district court found that that evidence that those that those that failed to show that those two techniques were known to be interchanged well it also found is offsetting the and displaying based on based on cross point information screen size information and video image information or other evidence showed it  understand by the term interchangeable are no interchange ability in this context now again to go back to my rather silly hypothetical and say that a bicycle and a motorcycle interchangeable with are simply a function of travel from a to b but that does not strike me as what any court has met by using the term interchangeable it obviously seems to require something somewhat more what more do you think is structures have to be known to be interchangeable for performing or were cited functioning and they have to be noble to be structurally interchangeable and well evidence to be equivalent structurally equivalent it is a bit of an amorphous concept it certainly means a lot more than having two structures known to exist at a particular point in time that perform the same evidence that informs the equivalence or the either the functional a result or the insubstantial differences inquiry here we don't even need i mean they leave in their evidence only got to the issue of whether they perform a generic function of australia which in and of itself is not good enough even if they were there evidence were good enough imo no one interchangeability it's not enough it's not  short interview even under interchangeable of the as the standard exactly how did it fall short in your view so that's the that's the best way for me to understand what you mean when you say entertain drivel as opposed to what they mean when they say interchangeable ok so first of all it's it's it's it's it's not whether they're interchangeable it's whether there was evidence showing that they were known to look at i am going to take the known to give ok when i use that this to the contrary the district court found that the two techniques are not interchangeable for purposes of the insubstantial differences analysis simply because they were both knowing to accomplish horizontal translation to create stereoscopic image have to look at the structures and i'm going to go and do that and then he and the district courts q b went ahead and looked at the evidence both sides competing there was computing expert testimony and other and other types of evidence and looked at most important aspect of the difference between the two that in your view justifies a conclusion and that these two techniques are not equivalent what's what's the bell ringer here in terms of the structure and to the extent that it requires from an armed why they are where they are why they're not quote i'm sure the i think the best evidence for offsetting or for display let's talk about offsetting is the effect on the horizontal coordinate of a given pixel transformed by a matrix in the three d s cannot be reduced to the addition of a single value instead of the three d s is a transformation factual finding which is not challenged by to meet that that factual finding the perhaps it is that factual finding is not challenged by to meet in fact virtually all of the factual findings that the district court made is not challenged as a as a technical matter all of those values affect the horizontal or the horizontal shift of of the of the pixels and the rotation for example affect the rendering so you're modifying every single pixel in the x y coordinate and your you or the modifications involved rotation include rotation translation and   either one one either one of those grounds is sufficient so i disclaim component by component this court and to me to watch construe the displaying structure of the corresponding structure to require synthesis frame memory fifty along with signals which forty and switch control unit forty one in their inputs and outputs that was the corresponding structure when this case w submit that the this court's claim construction rejected that argument and the district court's findings of fact also rejected that the district court made extensive findings of fact looking at all of the corresponding structure as construed by this court and comparing all of that structure to the substitute structure in the three asked to meet accused of infringement the district important difference regarding offsetting and the court referred to this notably in the function where a result analysis out of context thirteen to fourteen of the decision as the one individual difference of the pin on its own and this is the single value  but the court itself goes on to explain that the single value issue is a result of rotations and scale and those rotations and schelling's are a result of camera calibration for example of appendix fifty two twenty two lines twenty to twenty four to ten his own witness explains that its camera calibration that requires rotation of images and scaling of images we other values that are separated thank you rotation and scaling but the horizontal velocity value is completely separate book and it makes sense to me to prove infringement prove that three never sell because there are no additional transformations for rotation and scaling it's completely separate but it also was important in its own grave as objective evidence that the horizontal offsetting referred to in the claim