here mr gove offer needed an entirely new word there is no such thing as that it's not just embrace seen a specific meaning or specific definition of a term or a word it's actually describing them having having  a specific description of the word as as having a specific meaning that's we don't i don't see that that happened here not going to deny that this was a sort of a case of if i come up with an entirely new technology and for lack of and existing terminology i said well this is a fragile stat that's just what i call it because it doesn't traditionally have been done using photographs of photographic film which of clear coating with a bunch of chemicals of wood on it so the hologram would be able to motion and motion exactly exactly  the for helpful riser that would have to have a coating the export our own an expert was in agreement on this and then after the evidence had been submitted to the board the board on its own said optical coating if you buy my evidence and you ask for a rehearing on that issue i don't believe so i was not involved in that aspect of it but before that i do not believe that there is that's part of the invention yes you are in essence well that's the problem with that argument is we don't know whether the specification includes a hologram and we don't know whether a hologram is an optical coating or not got we do know that call that's what i just said it definitely refers to them and we don't know whether hologram is an optical coating or not and so if it's not an optical coding then your invention includes embodiments that don't have an methods have you now what are these methods we go to columns forty four thru forty six i grew till i agree with the cascade council column forty six in particular what we were interested in and we were the ones that raised this point below in our arrangements but the bit i know is are these are going to be other but you're right about that yes you're exactly right judge well various arrangements and think yours fifty four sixty four eighty eighty one eighty two eighty  five five of those figures are the figures that our opponent relies on for requiring us these arrangements and utilize a collar skerrick pneumatic liquid crystal instead of a multilayered dielectric coating i don't think anybody much less consumes less space cost less to produce column forty four lines two through eight that's what he's interested in is that for an l structure and it goes on and on we can look at reduce size weight and cost let's look at what the gentleman says about for now mirrors with a look at the figures forty seven to forty nine on page appendix one sixty eight he's not interested in the particular composition of are holograms one other option at the diet at the same location as the dielectric coating but if you look at column forty six of the patent lines twenty one to twenty three you see yet another option and this other option is the use is that these are very technical terms and all we have is to specification to discuss whether they're not optical codefendants or they are optical coatings and you say one thing your friend says the other thing i mean you may be wrong pearl i know you may be right i have no idea oh without expert testimony to distinguish between the two well there is one other school that i think may help you are in that forty there is a disclosure in the patent that actually says and hopefully i can find this and i was able to at color forty two to forty three there's actually a disclosure regarding the use of a dielectric surface so that's just  plastic surface the glass surface alone and it still accomplishes the same polarisation splitting aspect this is column forty two lines sixty five to column forty three at about line three and it says here that the mcneil prism makes use of the fact that light which hits at dielectric surface at an angle such as brewster's angle which is ninety degrees or so excuse me forty five degrees splits into reflected in transmitted beams which are somewhat we're talking only polarized and then it goes on to say you can add layers of coding to make that even better but what that discloses is that even without a coding you still get the effect you're looking for why it's just important i mean it's a actually mr managing that the hologram issue did not come up but it did come up at eight for two to four our reply brief page nineteen we raised this exact issue so they were on notice of this going to the hearing we raise at point because they raised it in their pattern response and that was the appropriate time i just have one other point i'd like to raise to others which is at the beginning there was a question of whether this is all about clean construction and at least with respect to the need for guessing right it's not because there was agreement on the construction for means for it enhancing brightness both in terms of the function and the structure so there the real question is whether the prior art discloses the corresponding aura saito how does a network specifically read on coined it basically it says that you can't claim more than what you've actually invented somebody that's a general agree not the structure it's the way in which the function is accomplished through all this patent mr gold office and his goal is to have uniform brightness that appears in the title of his patent the brand reference  principle in validating some of the earlier claims specifically says that there is no uniform brightness he specifically makes it brighter in the center and differ as you get out of the corners mr gold off those exact opposite thank you so thank you