heading than the one we're dealing with here which it was ninety fourteen as opposed to ninety thirty so in some sense it seems to me the question we're dealing with is whether similar language in two separate headings can have different meanings because we're bound by the meaning that solitaire gave to the optical instrument language in that context but it wasn't dealing with the same heading we're dealing with here but the operative language is simply that is correct is it right so so the question is whether different language and different headings the same language in different headings can have different meanings depending on the context and  twenties and sort of change origin of the criteria as chief use the predominant use then that morphed over time so i think the court for that statement was trying to say that for purposes of figure whether something is not the instrument we have to look at not just those criteria but also common sense there was this element of common sense that came into it as well but the fact that there was a sextant correct that involved  apply that i think at least in my view there's a difference between saying under particular heading we go article by article and we like to apply different tests to suggesting that similar language in different headings may depending on the context have different meanings and for example in nine hundred thirteen you have this reference to lasers which might suggest that eating human vision but is it your theory that identical language for the optical instruments can have different scope of depending on the heading and the content for predictability purpose and uniformity the customs laws fact that the referencing where the chapter covers optical instruments and apparatus ranging from spectacles of having and therefore to more complex instruments used in astronomy photography cinematography or microscopic observations the common thread in all that is the human vision of things that you with an optical element is an optical instrument i think it's a really important point and the cases throughout the years american idol cases discussed quite a bit in the red brief makes very clear that just because you have an optical something in your product the dictionary definitions which take you out the other end as a science that deals with light its genesis and propagation and if you go down that road you live for yes i think that but then job to figure out in this case where to draw that line for the rule cannot simply be you have an optical element there's some optical characteristic to this therefore on those dictionary definitions you go in chapter ninety again when the drafters of question i have and that's why i know we have an alternative argument about if solitaire doesn't fly but let me ask you if under the reading you're proposing we have said these are the four factors or three factors you have to use what does that mean we have pretoria this is not a totality of circumstances and a lot of our tests that we have kept and we look at the various facts and you decide which exist in which you that if you have a factor or criteria whatever you call it that says ok and in another case we'll say yes it does eight i mean how do you if you're in the you've got a criteria either it applies or how do you say it apply some time so you reach different conflicting results and similar just hoping for the same question the judge approached us and what is you know what are we supposed to do with that language does that mean for example with respect to hitting twenty four nine hundred fourteen which was involved  vision or both and so there's not a requirement that it do what you're saying the criteria has always been one but what about if you have similar good i mean you're not judge saying it's not determinative therefore i don't have to necessarily apply this criteria and then another judge saying it's not determined but i want to apply this criteria i mean the judges are  judges make those types of determinations all the time based on the facts in front of them as to it when you have to various factors to be considered and certain types of instruments or certain i mean he did not say in certain types of instruments you someone would say that it e that's kind of nebulous statement isn't it none of these is necessarily determined adept or whatever the words are that we use or change the light in some way so the in your example of just a plain lens of the do nothing to a light that would not be sufficient here is undisputed that the optical elements in these instruments do manipulate the like the other offical appliances and instruments your honor the government would it would agree that those are the descriptive provisions and it doesn't appear to name a specific kind of good and it's more of a descriptive provision i don't think human vision has been a criteria as i don't read the cases and i think a fair reading is all the cases have that element so whatever the phrase means about it not going to term and of those factors in every case it seems an aberration the only case we where there's a story about weighting of different factors aside from the examples of the more generally examples so i said i cannot think of any if i mean the difference i guess but short answer is no i can't think of any essential character w like essential character and i cannot think of another proven that has you know multi factor test that's traditionally created there are certainly ones for example computers that go and having eighty four seventy one in the top of my layout you have to meet this this and