doctor howell's evidence with the care consideration and said there are just too many holes in it he didn't record his results how can an expert witness not record difficult to do this is not difficult to do once you determine what these are you can use a grid like you do that you can mark among the major minor axis like it did the places from which is that something has been existing for fifty years used the same purpose on a given by both roscoe and remark that this is the requirement from the customer was to provide a constant curvature on the mirror and to to make sure that happened even if the contract did on pot is an infringement and we had five separate instances of proof the only one of the court referred to was professor hall's test on years one two and five he also tested another twenty four to thirty beers which the court did not take into but that's based on the theory that all of the units are infringing that there are no non infringing substitutes right here because that is incorrect by definition it's an incorrect by grain processing and a dozen other federal circuit opinions that's an incorrect methodology the district court use that as half of its analysis used an incorrect two dollars fifty cent compared it with the one dollar that was put in by roscoe on average student one seventy five but as a matter of fact the top number you gave us is as a matter of law and correct and should not have been used why doesn't this court find that the only supported royalty is one dollar and decrease it by seventy five cents a unit at that point he found that it was easy enough for them that's the grain processing test that they were not necessarily on the market at the time but then as  pointed out it was easy to do everyone knew how to do it so there were in the market sense non infringing alternatives available therefore the two dollar and fifty cent oriented to the major axis of the absolute two because that straight line in the y dimension falls curves service you needed to follow that surface precisely and three issue on a straight line over the cur you believe one version of the story where the scratches came from which means that he was not following the surface precisely but he was galloping into it with a sharp object and the mirrors of course cannot be did it first he said it could not even recall what the dial measurements were later on he said he could recall but his recollections were contradictory and in some ways impossible in one case he remembered that he the tests or recorder so that if someone sleep once to determine later that these tests actually prove what you say someone can repeat that test and see if this is true so you've already given away what could have been a winning argument right if it is probably true did not or did not cross appeal and so we could not argue for a change  don't you know the answer to your first question is it would be fine with me if the court would do that says the second one on what basis would we would we do something that you didn't ask  customers want the expanded view what the customers there's no record of any customer ever asked for that extended what these customers ask for is a device meets the federal regulation doing if you if you say that the variance no tolerance is not infrequent you're given a tolerance exception to the freshman and there is no such thing turkey when the claim has been construed to require any decrease whatsoever even with regard whether it's in a tolerance or not their tolerance or time was thirty thousand and the courts are really found lenses with less than thirty thousand more information so they didn't really go take any steps to avoid infringement they could have made it not concentrators but then they