one related question which is is anybody i know mars are still making candy is anybody making these machines are these machines in concurrent usage does point except they're still exist i mean there's no question of injunctive relief this is all about money that's why this is so unusual that over this length of time the parties haven't found a way to find a solution where all you're talking about is money that's when the business people find some common ground i can hardly i can hardly imagine any any of the business people on either argument is that because he's a second class and even though it was may have been a substantially higher frequency range was still within the low frequency r a substantially higher ranking i don't see what i don't understand is why are you saying that because the second one was also low frequency therefore it couldn't be substantially depended upon the frequency but also on other factors as well that's correct things of that sort so it's not it's not all based on just frequency so depending upon what the coin is made up with what it's permian billet is what it's conduct is what frequencies might provide for partial penetration or full penetration with wood with would depend on on all of these variables well that's right and that's why it is a functional construction that has some specific frequency limits that won't necessarily be the appropriate frequency limits for certain types of coins depending upon range and if you look at the definition of particle physics provided in the very clear what that term is intended to mean this is not the case where you can merely resort to the dictionary  it is well there's also language in the that description if i remember it correctly about seventy five kilohertz being the break point between the high and the low and all of that but that that's not in the restore your rebuttal time and before you sit down if you lead a minute to talk about the seven one nine package would give you we'll give you two minutes to talk about that if you'd like but if you are would like to talk about  poor reconsidered and reversed itself it said i'm not so sure the point so actually demonstrated and sold the nine for a three point five day and sort of reversed everything but what we have hard to ship under section one object before you people use it and i just want to ask you one specific question you're arguing a claim construction that as i understand it the electromagnetic field must be very in response to the input testing characteristics for each coin denomination not just for one coin to nomination am i correct that's correct my question is was was that a claim construction that was  characteristic refer back to the testing characteristic of each point a nomination ok maybe maybe when you get up on rebuttal you can point to where in the record i'll find the claim use incidentally in this case focused on is going in a ship out the products they test every single one with a bunch of points in the back and so they run through the methods that are found inf and your entire don't argue for any on me basis to affirm him but i'd like to direct your attention to the issues that mr marshall wants us to consider is that what at least in the our large and particularly the one hundred two g issue would you speak to that with with respect getting back to the higher frequency lower frequency yes limitation limitation one c yeah i would like to do that let me ask you this guys i understand mr marshall's argument is that the term higher frequency lower frequency those terms were defined in the past i believe that's what he's saying in column two where it says the lower frequency is one which when applied that separate set or will penetrate deeply into or through the coins then the higher frequency is one which will penetrate not more than half way through so his argument as i understand it is that the term the expression high frequency low frequency as used in the claim in accordance with the written description means  but these are the paragraphs that immediately follow the brief description of the drawings and usually that's the that's where the detailed description is where the detailed description normally would be the summary of the invention would receive that just in the summary and invention of c f or the top of question which is why should we not treat this as a definition and then to hear the language rather than treated as you see treated as a kind of passing comment on the before you do that then we point out to you also in looking at the written description the portions that i read with come to that you characterized as being related to  then you have an eight second embodiment so it seems to me the language that i read receives the discussion of the and this is a theoretical calculation penetration it is not the penetration in the actual machine so if you say that all all but the war apparatus law it is not shown by point that they had penetration that was more than fifty percent on the contrary the evidence is that in  perhaps you can direct us to the portion of the district court's opinion that addresses the question i raised the description of in the one thirty seven pattern t marshall thank you