be i mean i would even offer i've found that you wish to use your argument and you didn't even address that to us on appeal your whole blue brief doesn't address the fact that the i t c held there was a waiver and they then went on to say even if there is not a waiver j rejecting don't you have other problems with your obvious next argument in the sense that the commission specifically found that to set your own pack for admitted that it would be very difficult to to undertake taking this some of this testimony it seems out of context and so i don't we just meeting the testimony of tim tardy i don't reach the same conclusion you necessarily write because i think there are other aspects found was not so simple even if his description was a very complicated description of what would have to occur and a l j based on sanford's description of that being a difficult process and the commission found that there would not be a sufficient motivation to undertake that exercise so you want to turn to a thread that pointed to the aughts of two different sides noted that the respondents argument reads the words position two out of the claims is not consistent with the description cation which describes a new bridge that connects two different  configurations of conductors it is a little weird isn't it that they take the word capable out and placed on the something else and then their proposed struction is capable of yeah i would happily address that if we can look at the  then the third came conductor in that originally presented a claim to your capable of being connected to user acceptable plugs so by the time we get to the issue claim we're looking at something else entirely we're looking at all three conductors capable of being electrically isolated from each other and at least two of them being connected to the user's awful lot so we're concerned with a completely different arrangement and there is no indication in the prosecution history of the reason that this plane was cancelled entirely this claim was not amended to get to the client or issue but it was cancelled entirely and he pursued a different approach entirely on an invention that was looking for mostly focusing on the cent think rewritten with a focus on the side of life if you look through the entire prosecution history and now like to turn to the obvious in this argument i think that the my opponent is arguing to this court that the court should really weigh the disputed evidence in the record about whether it would be obvious to combine these references and it seemed to that would be inappropriate and inappropriate activity for this court in the s court said that even if some evidence in the record detracts from the commission's conclusion of where substantial evidence supporting the commission terminations is should be affirmed i mean i'm confused so you're saying right now obviously this is a fact i thought you were talking about obviousness in general i totally agree that the obviousness conclusion is a question of law based on underlying structural considerations my opponent cited the inventor's own thought process subordinate of obviousness argument  you mean with respect to you look at the prior art pad and then he says yes well that must be an error and it's inconsistent with the other testimony that the commission relied upon because hindsight can't be based misspeak there is substantial evidence where he unequivocal the stakes this is a difficult to do someone who wouldn't know how to fight it and the commission credited that testimony so when there is conflicting testimony about this underlying factual issue of motivation to combine and there is substantial evidence supporting the commission's determination this quarter from the side that determination based on that evidence and with regard to this argument that someone would simply know how to type of metal there is no evidence in the record about how those conductors should be connected to the rest of the circuit how they're going to be reset other going to be isolated it that evidence is simply not the idea messick industry with you  conceded in the briefing that they're not challenging the commission's interpretation of the statute which would be a legal question but rather they believe that the commission erred in relying on some data in support of those determinations and of course that  the commission's position that that under and b if you build a master plan and put a bunch of people on there that it doesn't really matter what they do as long as you've got expenditures and it's wrong if you've got the product  manufactured somewhere else it matters what they do with respect to the article so if it was if all you did like ship it in and then package it and market it what that counts i'm not sure that i can answer that question but if you build a master plan and you fill it with engineers that design the articles that are built in another country i think there's no question that congress intended that to be domestic and domestic industry und from i think that this court has looked at the temporal limitation on domestic industry in different contexts particularly if there's a concern that the industry has gone out of business for example i think there's a case about a big proceeding or a transfer of rights the patent so i think that there are hard times when the court and the commission should look at something other than the time to file a complaint but the court and the commission both have to be reasonable about what commercial practice entails you build a product you start getting it to market and you move on to the next product and we have substantial evidence in the record here cited on page thirty six which emissions prove that even though these engineers working on the record shows working on additional products they had not left the product the practice of the time they were still involved in the product lifecycle in those products were still on the shelves so i think that it's important to recognize certain shows investments leverage in eighty nine patent and she thousand can outline and i have my clients permission to give the total number here ten point seven million dollars and it's broken out on that page in the several other categories of you look at page sixty five  sixty six of our great footnote five every one of those categories evolves into a category with a condition and found that those types of activities constitute a man in the domestic industry so with the temporal issue even if we set that aside just ten point seven million a language the statute nor the legislative history preclude from consideration engineering and research and development investments that preceded the issuance of the patent in determining whether a domestic industry exist or is in the process of being  of logic but the bottom line is i think you can set aside that issue of timing because we have the twenty time numbers here they're extensive and they all break out in the categories that the commission found accounts such as  quality control testing engineering exception so what do you have any questions i have nothing for