has an obligation to treat obvious as a separate distinct challenge to no discussion of a mold layer defining capital section in the discussion the discussions of much more general in describing the which was a key element of the invention the fact that you could figure the intersections in the mall cavity which the discussion of leave starts on page forty six of our opening group and then we walk through we naturally on page forty seven you'll see we take the  starting the first and then acclaimed and identify the various limitations in the first independent claim there are twenty six in the beginning on page forty nine would begin to apply to the fact that if you even look at the substantive discussion which was general in nature certainly there was more of it in respect to the prior reference that was at issue in the first appeal you will see that the the full paragraph on page forty nine but is in the record is is the evidence in the record that can be developed by the jury itself without having been led to the i don't know i still think that the analogy to receivers really found here in the sense that there is a burden of proof in a party's going to trial to present an issue to invalidate pad and going to trial you would think that it's not too much to ask to figure out what what evidence will rely on how you will combine where the is that it is the proponents of the evidence for infringement and the other and this court has said that that is not the of the gate of the trial judge to sift through the evidence to figure out the the possible have for obviousness what pieces of are need to be combined and what piece of are it's be modified and that i believe it is their duty you know the geisha to at least provide some sort of guidance to the jury as to how they can reach for jury files a different path dealt exclusively with one reference j p owing to the japanese reference that was introduced into evidence but there was no substantive testimony at all as this court realized including the one who pointed out num in the claim was present in the prior art that dr kathleen testified about the only possible exception being pre determined that limitation and that limitation was admitted on cross examination by mr brown turkeys president so i don't think what that means is and what the jury could have understood that to mean reasonably so was that you redirect flow in a different direction that's no i mean after all why would you redirect lho had no idea where the flow was going doesn't make sense and that's that was his first statement on cross examination the second one had to do with the motivation to combine the so that it was no to use or to read or to have flows across the straits in the park that was the motivation for using the noon flow flow direction felt the remarkable bases upon which the jury could have rendered their verdict of invalidity and you know the question is the issue here is why didn't we explain these theories to the jury i think you asked that judge  clearly they felt it was obvious it might be a different situation if you have multiple references that you have to combine here it was almost everything except for one imitation was present and i think in this case i think it was a it was to present it to the jury in all of the evidence and link the pretty well when i suppose it's possible to say that but we the other things are to realise that as d j plaintive we went first bro case the bottom line is was the verdict they will support it whether substantial evidence and i think that was their own purpose to change direction for the motivation for doing it i think turkey concocted this argument that redirecting doesn't necessarily mean you know the resulting direction but there's no testimony about bad trial injection molded plastic wasn't all plastic products this testimony was specific to injection mold products that's all the case was about that's all we were talking about at all the testimony was so somehow turkey is innocent they put our rights the the claims that there are relevant to in his vision also relevant to our business so i think here clearly there was no need to file a prosper on the fact that it would have been improper and i would expect that that might have come up at the beginning of the oral argument turkey never once backed away from its infringement drawings or charts regarding the three hundred six when they didn't back away the trial they did within reach it didn't touch it today yet but they have never backed away from it in fact brown with both and there siegler and it ness the that of course was in the context of infringement the court stated that the fact that some of these things arguments concerning literal infringement might also have been relevant to equivalent is not sufficient in itself to stablish that describe their contents but never went beyond that they never said what might be missing that it wanted me that anything might be missed there's actually nothing given to the jury for them to actually look through the record to pull out the relevant information to