do can i ask you this question it seems to me that besides table tennis figures thirteen and seventeen is it three hundred seventy three hundred seventy and i say three in seventy  is there any difference in according to your position in where there is that material together discloses sufficiently discloses a simple addition example and all the other possible permutations of the functional the general functional definition that your expert testified to if i were to think about whether the figures three and seventeen that this implicit disclosure is as great for that example a star is no better for that example than it is a range of other possible combinations of eight or ten factors because see if i can just pinpoint the question a little bit better is that teaching if we'd be as good for all the other variations as it is for the addition hypothetical that i just described are experts in  yes it is that the district court been holding the two claims invalid put these claims into the category of what's referred to didn't know a case you know of be into my understanding from the from new york and then in a footnote in a twenty one district court says well i looked at the experts and i don't really have to and she she did not proceed to pursue the analysis what's your understanding about finding that there's clear and convincing evidence that one of ordinary skill could not implemented could not understand it and that song the standard discussed in various cases knowing others that if you have  and the patent specification doesn't have the entire program in it it's not just the stuff in the program is it it doesn't actually have any relations between the various components that could go into the ultimate calculation not move and you know for that claim nine what i described is assigning a number to the wildness of the wheel adding it to the time of day number for deriving a private driver drought that is from my mind it is quote incorporating additional factors beyond circadian rhythm waiting to determine likelihood of sleepiness and that's a that's a step that's not a step below is that there was not there is a lack of any structure with respect to the functions of claim one and also with respect to the functions with respect to claims not she she believed that there was  printing structure with respect to the waiting for not the others and so therefore she ruled under that since with no with systems that she need not consider expert testimony now it is interesting that she did actually do consider yet she  of judge her that there is no structure for example he comes up with for table tennis comes up with the template theory that leap you're referring to which was simply stated that you circadian rhythm and then one or more of those other factors in any way you want to combine them and one of or the steel in the are would know how to make a method right after that is the point of this case your honour's a listing of factors template for generating all sorts of different on either my itself when they say that it's merely incorporating additional factors beyond circadian rhythm waiting to determine likely to sleep  that functional language is saying same thing you can use ones you can use you have to use circadian rhythm factors but then you can use any other type of factor in determining how to drive drive or sleep in its weight and also h algorithms and this court has been very clear in all cases that there needs to be a step by step procedure algorithms set forth in the specifications and in this case there is not at all even the you know even there that i mean when you first look at tables and it does appear to have more than you know the call to intone three which is pure functional languages i think we can quickly disregard ever but when you actually look at it there's no disclosure whatsoever at the how to talk to each and on each of those individual factors there's no disclosure of the contributory importance of those factors to drive or droughts there's no disclosure as to when somebody's going to be sleepy or when they're going finding i would argue that when you look at these particular elements it says my the temperature was during the ruins not the trip duration well these all have different unions how can they even be added together  or that the mechanism by which the warning is communicated to the driver just about the final number that triggers whatever that mechanism is will you know i think because it's part of the computational means option and there are three functions associated with the competition means one is the weighting one of the driving drivers sleeping is the third which is providing an output we believe there are providing an output falls on i don't believe they disagree with u on terms of that it must be someone and so there must be disclosure how to perform that function right get to provide the output which is which is a number that then leads to something else later and claim one what i'm trying to understand is how bad determination and one for example there's also going to be a determination to claim nine based on two shootings during transitions waiting in court this time of day and then at that point there must be a decision as to whether or not to provide an alarm or to provide a warning indicator so i think that the two are actually synonymous in that instance and so the question then becomes ok is there sufficient disclosure in the specification to provide such an output we say we didn't do is not i think frankly i think your expert agrees with us because the expert you know if you go to figure seventeen when you suppose the three warning will levels that it doesn't disclose when they are triggered or what kinds of output you actually get see still need  does not provide sufficient structure or any structure within the specifications for doing that twenty two more minutes your honor i'll be very brief i did mention holmes two are gone three i'm not sure how much i need to go into detail with respect to that both of those simply repeat functional language from the claims two so if there is again i guess what i just stated is no correlation to when somebody is alerted or somebody is drowsy with respect to those two factors i think you've mentioned that earlier in your earlier question so and there's also doesn't appear as humans ose disclosures are sufficient the algorithms are sufficiently described with that's the task that calls for looking to the evidence from one of ordinary scale that we presented and  and in the battle of the experts they lose they be presented to one is a ph d psychologist who have a lot of experience managing research projects but if he doesn't have the computer expertise to  what could or couldn't be programmed there are other expert is a computer scientist but has no experience in this area where is our expert read retain an expert who is not a professional testifying expert he