confusion here perhaps stems from the fact that we talk about midpoint and point yet did they from that occasion i mean did was their representation here to the party submit to the district court their position as to what neither side is directly confronting what the prayer says what was argued to this court the first time around and the decision which distinguished the japanese prior art and therefore sustained the validity of the pet stores anticipation was concerned and care and i agree part of that focus was indeed the fact that there was a unit form diameter rather as i recall the illustration they were not the same diameter they were slightly lesser in diameter but that that was not deemed to be dispositive they are committed as came before that the issue i'm which in turn was whether in fact the patented device had along its length and uniform cross section as did the japanese references o had a broadening bulging or conical renny of the various terms that were used to distinguish the japanese references and it seems that it was a fairly straightforward was that the reason the japanese references did not anticipate was because they were uniform cross section along substantial central part of their job a middle portion to end portions and rounded sheets how might question is with respect to the japanese reference or the constructions part of the agree this i think that's how the cork was looking at this when the case was here last time that the rounded and the rounded seeds and the constructions were all part of the rounded tip and that the  court observed that the distinction of the claims or the japanese references that the japanese reference had a uniform now i am better throughout that's the middle and end portions or adversary and their grief at page thirty one but all areas this is at the bottom of the page all areas of segue or step down from the constant diameter middle portion toward a tip of diameter than in the middle portion must must by logical deduction be regarded as part of the tip and it seems to me that's that's a fairly straightforward way of rationalizing you and that's the proper way to read our opinion of when the case was here last then what is the basis with the district court determination that the end portion must be a constant diameter or that or that there must be a taper throughout but i don't see or i don't understand and i don't and that's why i concluded that well the only way i can square all of this is the middle portion is tapered throughout because it can't be uniform because my argument is t let me see if this helps if we look to the very tail end of the break these various accused structures take i'd have to see if you just disregard the tips it's it's may look like it comes to a point but sixteen doesn't there isn't a length to sixteen you can see that in figure four and you can see that the if you read the description it's it's there is there's nothing that suggests that there must be a taper throughout quite the contrary seems to me you look again in a think you seven you see that the middle portion has a length these these are and my point is i don't see anything in the pattern that suggests that it's tapered throughout it meaning that the middle portion comes to a point quite the contrary i see much in this  suggests that the middle portion sixteen has a length i don't see that