but the question is whether there's a change in the water content that might be significant between the time of the original tests and footnote thirteen here and the test that you ran on the off the shelf product weeks or after it's been put in the package but i don't understand how the manufacturer who puts it in the package also is responsible because six months later the product degrades and becomes infring is that you may be right that the head of the mealey after it's in the package but that seems not to make a difference in terms of the infringing nature you have to say how well it could dissipate that would infringe in the hands of some  port for the original version of the coin one less than ten percent water that was also in the stack and both of those references are is it really talking about the liquid detergent concentrate as once it's not talking about it as it exists in the packet in the container and there there is a connection between the claim language and the stack which really comes through in the amendment to claim to doing the occasion which is stronger generally clear to be only about the liquid concentrate as formulated before it gets packaged into the container so i guess what i'm trying to say is there are there  between the klein language and this pact that seems to bring home and support the district court's construction here well as true as to calling the port of our claim to be an example one example or describes a cl t my concern my concern is that the applicant was making it on clear on the record how it understood the relationship between the claim and example one and was saying that when i believe that a two percent that examples still a focus on what did the applicant understand his claim to mean when you reference example ones ample of as formulated to present water  if i read all the gambles in this back talking about competition as formula one if i talk think about that one paragraph about less than ten percent less than seven point five percent less than five percent as about creating a liquid concentrate as formulated to have less and those particular recited percentages of water and then it does seem like that the patent specification at least is really talking about  the record everyone agrees that there might be so variation but they also agree that it's generally pretty stable and that it's not going to change to an extraordinary degree so again this is something that they can anticipate in their main factoring content go up or down answer that there are yes there is a possibility of making some changes that's certainly possible and sometimes it can go up right depending on the mission answer right i don't think you can necessarily predict that but yeah if it can change i could see it go up or potentially go down sure it seems your own expert has left quite a bit of unpredictability is his express testimony whether water content will go up or down heading on a there is this is less than precise the answer because you just want to say i read it declarations it didn't sound like there was anything out of the ordinary with regards to the environmental conditions let's say that these taxes were added so i had no reason to question that it was going to be issues a certain reasonable range what this product will look like and sure if you're tired in terms of the water content contained within the path of what the range the range maybe make the difference between infringement at the time of the original packaging and sale relevant testing and footnote thirteen which is at the time of the original package and that testing uniformly shows not infringe manufacturer and that testing shows no infringement so even if you're right that you have to find out what's in the package it would mean is that correct interpretation or the at the time the manufacturer placed it in the package  problem i could still do we do we know how long afterwards the testing one get from our over paper records you'll see that some of the products were tested quite a bit after the time that they were manufactured to little over a year and a half after six ok i definitely want to hear more about that why do you turn to a forty one eighty forty one eighty about whether certain products may use or so infringing products and here's why these products were tested in some instances long after the product control and if you look at  to say they could sue the third party distributors possibly if if for example it was shown that a large large percentage of these things were under seven and a half percent well after they change with environmental conditions beyond your control to anticipate but wouldn't be fair for example supposing that a user i had a box of these in my house and they sued me composition is below that claim water content now you have to consider also what happened during the prosecution of this is that this patent is all about if you look at the specifications all about  how to do that what they're asking this court to endorse is a plain instruction where her son could be liable for what happens six months nine months two years down the road seventy seven he also says when they want to result in liquid reached equilibrium after packaging there should not be any significant change as a three seventy six three seventy seven sons own expert testified that a person of ordinary skill