your honor this these candidates when this record was closed about two years ago for that and this motion there had been two hundred fifty billion of these and sold by and that translation of the reference were for the examiner in both patterns the examiner found the claim not anticipated over that particular reference and explained why  explain why it couldn't work that way and if i may explain the the canon and if it starts like this and this is the peking beat and this is the wall of a can if you bend upwardly during seem that the claim requires that the claim be of that the and be adapted to be present upwardly during seeming in the case the product claim or the actual event upwardly in the method claim and if you assume that this part is fixed and this point is also fixed for the can to bend upwardly the can and to bend up early the can and must move in it must it must come and meet the candidates not  the shortest distance between two points is a straight line and so if you're if you're going to change this they can needs to move in and in the patent the well in our patent the can is next and when the ca opinion was that it was not possible for a can and such as arguably as described and claimed to have toiled could not be see the other experts saying it could have worked a different way but anticipation which is what we're talking about here an inherent dissipate the burden is on the plate up to show that it necessarily operates in a particular way and the evidence is conflicting on that very point now getting back to where i started two hundred fifty that where there's conflicting evidence and there was conflicting evidence on that point the district court erred in granting summary judgment crown was entitle to would stay in court on the question of whether to i subpoenaed and frankly if we had called no expert the file wrapper alone should have given rise to evidence of the no into suppression there was nothing submitted here that the patent office didn't happen so they've already reviewed the patent saree reviewed this twice and concluded that there was no into suppression because it found that toil did not bend upwardly while keeping the lower part of the can an obviousness it's it was not decided below but that the metal savings are relevant to the written description argument because the patent is really directed to metal savings two hundred fifty billion ends saved compared to the standard and sixty two thousand tons of aluminum sixty two thousand tons is enough to fill two hundred and or probably twenty five thousand two and a half ton trucks it's enough to make a line of trucks one hundred miles long what does that do with this patent has to do the main problem to which it's a direct address is metal savings and metal savings metal metal savings is described in the specifications it's one of the two problems to which the patents addressed the other problem being a subsidiary problem there are various ways the patent teaches to to obtain metal savings  in this case there were two one of them is metal savings the specification describes that the claims are directed to metal settings some of them others are described to the second or drafted to the secondary problem of those claims are dependent dependent claim sixty two for example in the method patent depends from claim fifty which is asserted so there are claims directed to both  one to another and the court still looked at them as a separate problem and said you can have claims that directed to the solution of one and separate claims directed to the solution of the second and there's no requirement that all claims be directed to the solution because i think that was the one i thought that was the the situation and revolution i where where there were two problems and they were there were there were there was there were two problems that were related one to another and that's what we have here now the district court in written its written description analysis relied on tronto i see a medical and was attacked and i submit to that or three of those cases are distinguish from the case that the district court should have relied upon here this revolution i wear also cooper can run the entirety of this specification does not suggest that the there is an argument that they're not they're related in this sense if one wishes to obtain metal savings by both increasing the warning goal and narrowing the width of the reinforcing breed the secondary problem arises and that is the possibility of breaking the chalk and scuffing patterns directed to that in the claims that are directed to that this is not a broad genus claim where the result this claim functionally which is what we have in many of the written description cases that this court has decided nor is that a situation like we had in i c u where there were nine embodiments all of them requiring spikes so you read the specification and you think there's only one invention here and then you go to the claim and you find that there's a different claim in this case the broad claims directed to the and the method were found in the original as filed applications and i can give you the cite to that and those claims did not preclude driving the beads so this isn't a case where vick plane started out narrow and was broaden the superficial look at oil is a difficulty that i need to address when you look at claim to claim not have applied upward bending during the seeming process because of the fact that he started with a straight wall nine neck can so i know if that answers your question you mean  during the same process because it can't the flat and so toilet must have used and that was already in its upward position at the top in its present condition there's no other way it could have happened according to our experts and of course there's a disagreement about that but but that's the disagreement the jury needs to resolve would agree with sometimes we can't help ourselves here on earth at core this is a rule fifty six case this is a simple case of the complete failure proof offered by the nonmoving party to overcome  opinion by ignoring claim to doesn't take issue that the scene to end a figure for which is the upper part of the cure for it's the part where the where the and interacts with the top of the can the can flan that seem to end is most definitely what claim to looks like when it's seen mr heigham then drops to the rest of the figure four and looks at the part of the can't that's not part of the scene and says in heigham fall short on that because what mr scranton relies on is not the shape of the heart of the can only part of the q and ends up in the double seen the can has the bass part and it has the plans which is rolled into the double two depending upon which of those one claimed the can below the scene could be affected but the scene is the same so the i don't understand workers and it's clear election that we're talking about your honor i don't think mr heigham makes that clear for the record because he doesn't address the specific and moreover mr heigham was well aware when he told the patent office contradicting what  what they're now relying upon the testimony of the patent office of mr hope that mr highsmith referring to was where mr heigham said i can't tell what this thing looked like before seaming but he specifically called out the neck in the shape of the can is not material in future for the portion of the can that's not part of the double seen is not material in figure four that's not the element that's at issue here the element that is it issue here is the can end and the because figure for depicts a scene to end and there are a variety of unseen ends that preceded the can configuration does not cover all of the  teaches mr heigham speculates on a version of the of the on scene death and that would be consistent with claim one but not cling to that one does not have that one requires no necking seen it's a fairly standard thing in this business all of those truckloads ands that mr hyatt or mr rudd talked about have finished up the scene they can below it maybe wide it may be narrow it may be red it may be blue finished of the scene is to finish double seen mr scranton starts with the unseen down to claim two and says when seen did anyone skilled in new york knows that the double seen the interaction of the plans for the can in the can it looks exactly heist wants to take mr heigham is to say that the entire package in figure four including the put the irrelevant part of the can be a lot straight of bottom part of the can would be next so that doesn't count mr heigham doesn't close that gap mr scranton the part of the can that mr heigham is pointing at it is very limited opinion is not the part of figure four that mr scranton our expert relies upon the issue here isn't what goes on in the  issue here is what goes on in the double scene the scene the finished scene looks the same if you start with one version of with claim one mr hines for you wind up with a can one way on the irrelevant part but if you start with mr scranton's you might look at different ways on the irrelevant part but the key is the double scene this is a case about what the double scene looks like not with the can like and it's undisputed mr scran says if you start with a claim to and you seen the scene at the can't see is what show so the fact that the that the applicant you have the problem is here no you can go from claim two to the scene and in figure four in the scene and is all that's material because this patent doesn't say anything there are no elements in any of your survey claims about the shape of the can and about whether there's necking or not so the fact that the candidates illustrated in figure four happens to have neck and therefore mr i says that matches up with mr brand's version rather than pulling get if you seen the unseen dead and whether or not the rest of the chain and would be the same is irrelevant because mr strands not relying upon the rest of the can he doesn't have to match the elements that are in play if there were some if there were limitations about necking here then the effort to take mr heigham from not meeting screens or commits into a dispute might have some merit but mr scranton does not need the shape of the can all he needs is that there's a finished end and mr heigham doesn't mr heigham disputes that if you did what mr scranton says the canon figure for might be different but the can is not an element of the claim you know they have shown that they are in possession of a very specific way of seeming in a very specific and in chop it is one in which they consistently refer to the lower wall of the shop which drives and matches the angle of the canyon wall they call thirty two lower angle of the chop the drive surface the first two conical drive surface they emphasized repeatedly that the reason that you can seen this the reason this end is even  large cannon wall is because you can't seem it with a normal shot which presses in the bottom drives on the bottom and simply presses a little on the side this has an angle that's way too big to be able to do that you have to drive the the juncture of the two chalk walls it's an edge you have to drive into that so you have to drop it so it's exactly like those cases where the only thing that is taught the only thing that they are in possession of is a shop and only invention they teach the spikelets needle or the needle with spikes the cut that is conical in the other cases you necessarily solve the second problem it's not that the two problems are related it's that the first problem the metal saving problem the only invention that they're in possession of forces you to drive on the wall not anywhere else and they say that repeatedly they call to drive service if you're doing that a collateral benefit of that is to also avoid any scuffing because by definition you are not in the be but unlike revolution i where were there was we saw of the problem at first base by fixing first base and we solved the problem on the pitcher's moun by fixing the pitcher in this invention there's the pitcher's mound is we have a way of saving metal on the pitcher's mound and by the way if you implement that way you get the collateral benefit of not scuffing the yes you are like those cases that series of cases that we're relying upon use a venn diagram they teach and invention in which you seem on the canyon wall because you have to pinch that large angle cannonball with the juncture of the two check walls to get it bent because it's so large it's not like a simple prior art one where you bend it a little that's the only thing they teach and like those cases they're now claiming a generic way of seeming including a lot of things that they don't teach that isn't disclosed in the specification there's a that's why there's a lack of support for this method of seeming that doesn't seem a prior art can and wall it seems as large angle can and will and they said if you try to seem that conventionally which is driving down the reinforcing the which is a normal looking chuck you wind up with a wrinkle mess at the top not a finished double seen what they do is instead of driving in the bottom and gen pressing in on the side and this gets to the ten degrees of bending they have to go beyond that because they start with such a large t n n angle in the way they do it if you don't drive down here and gently press in and get wrinkling you drive right on the  description of seeming anywhere in the specification in the invention other than on the can it will suit you so to get their male savings you have to be able to seen not also drive in the bead with what they want is a negative limitation in all these claims there's a negative limitation and claim sixty dependent claim sixty two that says don't drive in the bottom of the beat but that's not what we have here the dried occur as there has to be some bending around the chalk during the scene process then the claim requires that what they claim doesn't preclude also driving in the big what they want to do the there's no showing that of having having those two together but the the inventors were in possession in fact the whole industry was in possession of driving at the bottom of the bead that's the way it was always done this isn't something new but turning to the metal saving aspects of the invention the important thing in the examiner saw it in his not reasons for allowance was bending upwardly during scening while keeping the lower part of the chuck wall at the angle that it started at that's what he found the claim was not anticipated over to it that's it a j sixty one thirty one in j s sixty eight fifty three those are the examiner's reasons for a while he didn't say the claims they don't i don't think so but i don't know i can't really answer that question because nobody does that that the metal savings comes from changing the wall angle and possibly also and the claims don't preclude that the reasons for allowance don't preclude that there's no particular reason why these claims should have been held invalid because they didn't have that negative limitation because that's not required