capable of doing something that's why what why is everybody looking to find something in the prior or where the thing was actually done that doesn't seem to be chords with the with the fasteners at the back side and therefore we think that the board's construction adjacent to war secured you know adjacent through the through and through an area near the baffles was overly broad we just think it was a possible cross construction our primary alliance for that position is really really based on the microsoft case microsoft dryly that it's constructions are unreasonable under general claim construction principles and we actually had a prior construction of that specific term in a related court case in that case the  perfect publication is i we don't believe that the evidence of record is sufficient to support the substantial evidence and what particular right so if we look at what exactly the evidence is in the case we have the declaration doesn't have to give all those blow by blow details in a declaration but but what we have here is something that supports mr scholar story and i don't know if it's enough maybe it is but the story is the braid tech catalog that came out in two thousand and six shows a photograph of this particular t v console then there's the consumer electronics show daily which also break tech is advertising and promoting a picture of this very particular television council and so let's assume for the moment that we accept and defer to the fact finding that those documents show that this product existed and was on sale and commercially available to anybody and and it was widely advertised through the consumer electronics daily as well as through the great tech catalog that was available at the show so then the question is well with multi component products like this that assembly is it a reasonable inference for the board to find that multi component products like this would that require assembly would come with some kind of instruction sheet on how to assemble said multi component product yes i would and i would agree one hundred percent if you were if the unit was for sale at that point it's likely that it would have had and instruction she with it and so therefore we're not living in a world where we have nothing more than mr scullers declaration that he flew to china went to a showroom picked up the instruction sheet we're we're looking at that declaration in the context of these other pieces of evidence which i probative intend to show and confirm his story that there were instruction sheets that existed in two advertisement are actually evidence that the product was on sale at that moment that's exactly my point but if what if we disagree with that and in the sense that we defer to the board who concluded otherwise that that these things were on sale and therefore it's a natural inference to believe that when it comes in the box you're going to find an instruction sheet on that right it's a net that that is a natural inference i would but i would  i would argue that the evidence isn't enough to find the chance to actually ban on sale actually judgeable carthy at the board agreed with that position the only reason it was mccarthy a group eventually found that it was a pretty publication was that put it together in a particular way it's the i thought you agreed earlier that these last three limitations of the said limitations are just limitations about what it's capable of doing you're actually right  claim doesn't require those and they certainly instruction does not show those other two we did argue that in a brief but that wasn't my primary argument that i was going to focus on this morning that wasn't the only piece of evidence in the record right there were other things that were taken into account in combination with that interested witnesses declaration that ultimately led to an affirm instead it was a printed publication in that decoration just confirms the inference that multi component products are sold with instructions somebody should correct and i heard today that i was  but this isn't a claim to a particular product it's in a particular configuration it's just the last three limitations here talk about it's big capable of doing these things so why why is everybody concerned need to show that the product for nothing in parts for there to be it sufficient to infringe this claim or the construction of the claim that it have these parts which are capable of doing being attached together in a particular construction it doesn't it's not a claim to a particular configuration right up to that i think that the c s daily document was buying interested witness but i'm not sure that i read the case that way it was that was an ex parte reexamination is this enhanced security researchers yes interest your honor i'm guessing he was referring to the dissent there which describes the didn't have any sales information it didn't have a price annex it didn't actually indicate that it was for sale there's no direct evidence from the catalog to the direct evidence you can find it for from catalog is that there was a unit you are indication the catalog by itself showed all parts but if you look specifically at that c s daily and picture it doesn't really show how the parts to go go together i believe that the requestor didn't