and looking at this is a case where in this case the judge asked a g i for fines and a job and even provided who or why officer acted the matter is the court's entire decision is set forth court obligated under has are the sports treatment to set forth in this case well i ok why did you come to the conclusion that this development your expert ford did say that you know shape apology it's something more critical how does this work and what there is in the record is for instance the fall is eighty nine seventy nine and eighty saying discharge plasma because ultimately that's how this works  that to be the case and i think there are always a vacuum where this comes to a head is this is a disputed fact question at that summary judgment in the record on this as to testimony for instance where is clear values post trial where we all are we have about the difference between one four and half and what that means is not a slight difference and when we look at why that case that was in the record we have off the wall or saying it would be viewed as substantial which is really only evidence in the record as expert just says here's what it says on the face of  that is we all understand that anticipation under our law is a question of fact unlike obviousness but at the same time i'm not sure why the question of whether a  fact it seems to me that's a judgment call that the court would make it's not a question of fact it's a it's a it's a decision like helping the decision of this every case is going to come down to not just a bigger manges we can just look at how wide ranges we have to understand the art because in some cases as the case here the difference between last one point five and free that is you can't ignore those in need to be considered indeed they're not after the fact it's objective and it's part of the house in the core here ok will restore your revival time since a part of a continuing half action very specific ones that you cited to the court there was an initial motion by option that their independent claims were not involved and that lotion addressed all of the references except the walker and obvious how do you deal with the fact that the court never addressed secondary considerations and there's why a case on especially now that says that ferry to consider secondary consideration well the court did have a reference a second or consideration as a concept to be addressed but he did not explain what his reasoning was on that although is it and is that consistent with his or what we believe it is testimony saying that it doesn't anticipate that it would not have been understood that half the pressure is dramatically less your actor didn't say anything to the contrary so how can we not how can there not be an issue of fact but this is just like that those were disputing the issues of fact they focused on the same references in their own motion in the premise that losing our summary judgment motion and becomes their record low there's no support for iran specifically with respect to obviousness they around it that is a different thing and the cord wouldn't have had the side shape is a relevant if that apology itself wasn't the difference between the prior art he was upon and then i don't hop as they were taking