the names yes i what mr kit actually wrote was can you guys find these proposal indoor email exchange around his his electro concept splaying out e b s lead i'm interested in this because i think that it predates the issue with mr james of our letter actually e mail actually shows mr kipp be presenting a specific reference not a general serve of that which he is already familiar correct your honor and the point is in your presentation of the email them directly misleading it certainly wasn't intentionally so the point is that's not my question whether it was make is that in the context summary judgment where inference is to be drawn and dr dan as far as favor the suggestion that they needed references to actually prove what was on the ark is inconsistent with the colliding when when somebody says x for someone to say well that's not true i know why isn't having to go out and prove something it's the facts exist fair enough your honor and the point on whether it's well known in the ar so i would submit that what we did not appeal was we looked at the crime bring evidence we tried to fit excuse me focus the issues for the court focusing on concepts sixteen and seventeen he mentioned that he does not don't argue with that he can substantially contributed no i would applebee's argument that you have to show substantial contribution to claim one you know as an independent claim in order to assert having substantially contributed to dependent claims sixteen internet while i submit the doctor data stars in lab ok ok so right here you have the side view actuated sort of spec in the middle of the page and there's the actual waiters up to the left right and there's a bend there the rigid portion would be the portion down to the electrode in place and i think the district court found that the portion where the actuator is was not properly guiding element because it included electrodes but there's nothing in the claims that prevent the guiding element from having elect work isn't that highly damaging your position in terms of the notoriety of the concept i don't believe so your honor i think what he's saying there is that so the micro muscles work wasn't in connection with the brain probe and what he's saying is generally he's seen the use of polymer actua well your honor i i guess have to try to find it for you but the point i think the question was didn't you consistent with the invention and i was trying to explain that under the district court's interpretation of the eight and four pattern it's not inconsistent that that material electrically time to get in polymer is not cheap memory so that seemed to be one of the things that you were challenging and the second thing you seem to be challenging was the whether mr dan as far as contribution was well known or correct but i the in the eight nine four pattern was issued was that they added a guiding element to a probe that was used and claimed in the six hundred three patent and i believe apple e's three foot two actually says that the adoration to be protected by the eight hundred four patent was the use of a guiding element that could either be maneuverable with cable or bought x or to be biased so i do not believe in it i do not believe that the the use of a guiding element made of shape memory material was disclosed by the prior art if it's had been general statement that you could use a material that would react to certain stimuli it would move back to its original shape not necessarily to steer a what they would call the carrier into the brain tissue in your blooper if you challenge that find you still challenge th i guess one thing i'd like to point out is that indeed the district court opinion so we're summary judgment is where we are in the proceeding and then at that first that stage dr jennifer did not have a burden to prove his inventor shipley he had to raise a question of fact as to whether he from the carrier and i don't believe that's supported with the claim construction got again that's a connecting structure and on top of that our probe is an actuator that actuators connected to the electrode ray so i don't believe that first of all off that there has to be two separate structures and to the extent there d