state let me briefly basically address the state issue this little court basically ignored the history of the dealing tween bilko they were the middle name and they were the district it was a go between there was a confidentiality agreement between i understand that the that they may have gone out and bought one of these and said let's look at what were the middleman foreign there be nothing wrong with supply that understanding of the clear terms which would never trump the clear mean mike understood but the point is we don't say that the north pole covers the entire world just because it's the the magnetism extends infinitely in the space but it does not think it is small but there'd be no point in saying cover the magnetism covers a majority of the surface of course it does b that the line between internal in plain language and the light of the specifications and reading a limitation from the specification it's a stage that this court historically has looked to and fifty times in his daughter's view that she's just been chosen to go to the moon very few people have that opportunity was because she has invented a weightlifting machine and then there's a discussion about how supposedly the bilko product infringes right but i don't really see in their kind of an explanation of where the district court is wrong i mean you have what the district court said then you have what someone said then you say that there's no infringement or that there is infringement but we're here an explanation i guess of how the district court's construction is wrong  in going through the claim construction part of your reply i kind of saw this theme of stating what the district court said then saying what what someone on your side of the case said and then saying that under your construction or under what that person said it was in french but i had a hard time seeing where there was an explanation of how the district court was wrong in its constructions they are taken off through that eight  construction is wrong but you don't see that in here all you have is i mean the difficulty i have the sickies i just don't see here where you establishing error in the district court i mean again you say mr rightly explained and then mr west or conceded but does show us a shark then protector extending outwardly above the surface why would the district judge error and said saying that's what your language does cry is violated  special any limitations and we're trying to decide what it means to extend beyond the surface beyond this the an exterior surface and when we look at what is invented and we see the figure that shows the shark fin protector with the magnet body itself lying above the surface of the of the tool and that gives us a pretty good idea of what that language means i don't agree but when it comes to now i can tell we were kind of going in circles here read reports i'm just suggesting that i don't see how the the district court read a limitation into the claim i think the district court was making a decided effort in the second year issue that they used as a factual basis is that this is simply which the court is familiar with in both of these instances judge perry and founders of matter of fact that the witnesses put fo on a factual basis did not substantiate a meet the burden of proof requisite to find liability in those instances and it centers around two witnesses your honor the first we're dealing with the e u the shooting of the two body is a confidentiality agreement with rather a downside he sanitized the drawings and gave only the drawing that showed the bill cohen poorly put this in the machine to do the work that it was a t we dispute the fact of bilko being in a contractual relationship with raptr in fact if you look at the reasons for judgment judge james barragan found specifically that there was no preview of contract in that  and these were the facts found another district court below that mr louis knowledge he didn't see any photographs being taken he didn't see employees handling the tools he did not see any record isn't that surprising the language of the planes under their interpretation would have to be recast again magnets become magnets and they're related exposed and they said that's not what we're talking about asking you a mere recess of the two a bunny or what we're talking about and they just didn't wish to look bust basis then they go back and say well that's all you have to we still my questions on the core what do you complain about that the evidence does not support the finding or that the evidence is overwhelmingly that there was insufficient incredible on the expanse of red what are you complaining about that that she may credibility determinations as i understand it and then on the basis of these credibility determines made a finding are you complaining about the credibility of the combinations being wrong are you complaining about the evidence being insufficient i don't understand the nature of your objection to the to the ruling i think unsafe  but with a few minutes of diving you know we just had to make sure it isn't what you're saying is i think you're saying that the judge because if you tied the state law claims to infringement what would you and he says you in response to the bells question going on the on the predicate that there's infringement so i guess what you're saying is that there was a frenchman and that because there was infringement the the since the trial judge did not give adequate attention and she should in light district court to make findings that you claim were not made on the state law claims right but i think that is that there would turn now by the same token though if we were to affirm on infringement would that be the end of it i don't