toll products so the stakes would be a district court trial on damages which would mean that the settlement agreement says this is three miles the settlement agreement says that as to in the tall once this court sub to the future anti injunction license so there isn't a dispute looking at the settlement agreement as to any pet no license is ever granted even when this court reverses estie a new tall is court reverses that district court construed the word happening as being a closed term so that the particle size having after the word having had to be exclusively one point up the specification uses the term find grind to refer to it's occult sub micro about one point zero micron particles and what the specification discloses is that it's preferred in bottom it is a nutritional supplement which is just that about one point zero but twice in the specification it talks about how the nutritional supplement can have both the fine wine and the larger non round particle sizes and there a administered orally and then again a column three starting at elia line seventeen both to find dry and end the non round substantially purified beta one three glue can product may be administered to animals as a significant nutritional supplement for the purpose of improving both growth in survival in these animals as well as enhanced in growth rate and feed efficacy this is where is a product finer particle sized glue cans that the about one point zero is more quickly to sat in the gastrointestinal tract and consequently more readily absorbed as compared to non ground who can product which comprises larger sized who can't product it's not have the sub micron or the about one point zero everybody admits this product has the about one point zero the question is can it have both that and more with the district court was said was no it has to be that are below one point zero micron about one point zero it infringes the fact that it has additional particle sizes which are larger the one point on my point doesn't make it not in french the court construed the term having but because we were never given a chance we are going to ignore the comprising term that appears before the term happy so even if this court were to affirm the construction of the distro which is closed i think that's contradict specification but even if this court were to do it their product still infringes the reason why the product infringes it because you would still have a particle size about one point zero micron one point zero micron and less in addition because of the it contains only a semi pro rather as disclosed in the original application the app to the same arse's both there is just large particles because they don't disclose anything about the existence of any of the small didn't say what the court tried to impose into the patent is an exclusive one point zero with the african said was it doesn't teach the small particles and that's all the op could ever said what was unique about this invention was the small particles and the possibility of combinations of large particles if the poor and keep in mind the evidence that they contain as a sub might come particle it's actually in the district court's order it's in their admissions it's in the communication with their attorneys the terms have been given the specification should be open because the specificially sclerosis both can be there this is not a case as this court typically sees where there's one preferred embodiment and we're trying testimony show that it got down to a point zero two eight but for the purposes of this appeal claim one is sufficient to reverse the final judge were not focused on trying to obtain infringement a claim to the district court says that claim we are a particle size is about point zero two point zero point two or less the dependent claim at the further limitation that the particle size is even smaller than in