one is on matrix and whether or not the claim construction by the district court was correct or not that's number one if this were to agree with that claim destruction then findings of fact were made by the court if the second would be that compared to ninety degrees below ninety degree melting point which is the claim way with the finding of one hundred twenty five degree melting point for eight different ingredient wor and the district court accepted the trial testimony as i suspect say that that requires a connection between the mouth and that therefore if there is no connection there can be no for example that isn't nowhere to be found in this languages and there is now the prosecution history to nowhere and in addition the district court said that it had to have a below average well we don't know what that means because that's not a defined term that's not the affinity for fluids is very different and affinity for fluids so it's also the opposite i think that was clear cut so i back up we do need to win on three and i think that there were three legal errors made here to claim destruction this court respectfully i submit that should engage in the proper claim destruction of matrix and look at philip because it's now been put in dispute by the parties it was not in dispute before we got to trial it became a disputed trial the district court relied on zionism's expert testimony together with a reference to the file history and came up with the claim construction at forty one appendix forty two actually i conclude i conclude that a collection of unconnected molecules distributed throughout another substance is not a matrix may i credit the conclusion of this infringement highly technical evidence that went in through multiple experts maybe a half a dozen or so stretch over hours if not days of testimony and he weighed the credibility of that evidence and he made a factual determination that schier failed to prove a thirty one even when there is a reasonable range of scientific opinions that even if sharon had a reasonable theory their theory by the way is you can see the melt but it's there it's hidden in the doubt that they can see there's no physical evidence of the mill it's simply no clear error and the melting point determination the judge jury may no shifting to the deal we shires mold meshing things together because they don't want to go through the element by element analysis for purposes of the melting point separate element of this claim it was incumbent upon shyer to show a melting point out something like the below ninety degree range there was something out and substantially different or which we'll talk in a second so in many ways i'm not sure what the purpose of this is because now i understand shires all that other distribution is a matrix theory so we're going to this in detail but it seems to be a bit of relevant because if you look at the that this test is representative of a test of those ideas in a product that's at appendix twenty two to twenty three but he didn't say that the doctor hikes test demonstrated that this is a product exhibit silicon dioxide is part of that mixture that opposes resistance to water they fall outside the consisting of language and violate them are crucial and we breathe that issue as an alternative issue on this appeal you don't need to reach that because i agree there's three other bases to do it equate poor vanity was some resistance when that was never the issue it was accepted that it was for affinity and trying to expand it not only is beyond the claimed construction it also were just to get it doesn't make sense in the context of structure because it's dispersed with and it is judged joins it strewn throughout the brain so he didn't need to go as far as to make instruction and by the way no one ever asked him to there was a debate at trial certainly on how to approach structure it wasn't when mr howe suggests that we invited the judge to do that that's not fair that's not true when our expert did is he went through illustrations and technical references that were actually in the intrinsic r i and i raise this with  quite the difference it shows that it's a much more dense in terms of the matrix form and they also told all the workers that are consistent with how our expert view and the illustrations and the evidence of a major it structure in