seconds to make the cello it all becomes jail now because this is the temporary phenomenon and when that yelling is still underway and not completed well i don't i don't think that's quite the way to say it the prior art has gel that is sort of liquidity that goes to a soldier out it's a transition ok that's what all prior art super absorbent palmers  the a liquid from the shell for that purpose i brought in a video clip from the defendant's expert this is mr richard rahn he's the expert witness for accused product does not leak he says i would have to say it does not leak something to do in what is supposed to do with the air force pilot yes using reflection back you can turn it upside down and it will not leak and that's what he's saying that's part of the video but to answer your question what i really want to show you was that when he tried this by upside down there are two parts of this white part snowball of thing part is the that is the conventional thing that everybody thinks of when they say just below is a murky liquid that sits beside the plant at the bottom of the tongue they're physically separated when he turned the lady so there's two things that you need to understand about this to understand literally the first thing is that there is a liquid separate from the jar if you look at all the job here and the whole fun of because you don't need a funnel because it is no liquid and so that is the first thing that is really important that you need to know about this crap and so am i remembering incorrectly or correctly  use a sponge or granular material created with you so if you were starting with the you know the widely used little pack with sponge with a funnel and as prices for super absorbent material came down and they became more familiar why wouldn't you just use that in the same bag that you have the sponge in before rather than saying oh i don't need the final take it out ok let's go with that thought i the way she did it  misquoted the testimony i would like you to look at appendix page sixty two that's her testimony i mean that's the that's her quote of the testimony and in her big complete testimony that she should have included without the but dot dot says that the physical properties change but we don't know why even today was twenty twenty hindsight we still don't know why this fluid does not flow out can i ask you i understand the points that you're making today but one of the problems for your argument is that maybe the claim that i don't see where  escape preventing fluid from being expelled from the bag yes ok and there's two parts of the claim one is preventing just the skate before thirty seconds and the other part is preventing is so important but what i would like you to do is compare the trial court's statement on page sixty two to the claim construction hearing which you quot on page one hundred five and if you compare those two pages you will see that by using three dots the trial court eliminated the uncertainty that exists today s that by itself without more doesn't get to the limitation that i think the other side is focusing on the such that flow of any  say and what did the trial court find about why it was obvious to meet that limited what the trial court specifically found was to be spies for cation requires also some internal means of  and it would be obvious to me this admittedly functional nonstructural requirement either and i can imagine that you have an inherently argument so that maybe it might be your answer but particular super absorbent polymer you've used this property will inherently result i think it founded i don't think it found it specifically for the pill pack but what the evidence  diapers amongst other things so there really isn't any testimonials with regard to the liquid layer this is the process of joe lation there's no real chemical change that certainly no testimony that there kind of categorical principle that when the prime aphasia cases are based side of the obviousness analysis is strong secondary considerations cannot overcome that  and the most of what the opinion cites doesn't say that one passage in one opinion has a sentence that can be read that way but we've i think pretty consistently made a much more context specific judgement is is that an error that requires reconsideration no i don't think so i think if you read fairly and i'll agree with you that you can find the passage here and there th withheld just situation whether or not the claims had been proven obvious until it had weighed considered objective evidence which is what i think the court requires us certainly even the case like bear versus watson where the  it takes a look at the objective evidence which i would say is not compelling there is some evidence of commercial success as a true year span there's no indication of how it stacks up in the marketplace it's really the trial court good credit give some reasons to long felt need but it's not compelling if you take a look at the pram study out of six hundred questionnaires only fifteen responses it really said this is something we wasn't done for for a long time and that appears to have been copied there by one company but but isn't it in that in the george martin case which trial court indicates that you need more there are several other features of the product that were not copied and i should those kind of segue into two things i didn't want to discuss but for a long time which is also the closure means issue one twelve paragraph six makes it clear that just performing the function is anough it means for its function claim never covers just the function success tends to indicate that the zip lock feature is important and distinct from roland full substantially different but the other thing i'd like to point out with respect to  seal to also highlights the failure proof there is no testimony these were interchangeable no witness called the roll and fold a rudimentary zipper like it's not clear how it would be they are not the same national stock number they have the same prefix but the prefix for plumbing covers a number of items search surely they can't all be interchangeable the other one that i'd like to mention just in the last minute because another alternative basis is free from attachment the claim structure sides meeting it at opposite edges suggest the edges are part of the to sixteen and eighteen which are first called the side edges and sides so free from attaching of the sides we think ought to have been construed to mean it's the open bottom is not attached to the same as it is in the case back in that case there is no literal infringement there is a festival presumption because a claim was narrowed from spaced apart from the sides to free from attachment to the sides that fest yes i think it's a key part of this case is to say that the it hammered property of a super absorbent palmer is that it forms a gel there's nothing inherent wedlock or whatever they called it was a starch grafted paul acolyte they use the word starch grafted when they talk about that so he's saying that there is a difference it's not all polymers are the same some are different and and mr young when he invented this pattern said that this is different because for that thirty second window there is a separation between the gel and the on sequestered li also on the issue of infringement there is a means for play and it means for claims there is an issue of whether the physical structure is of little or no importance to the