decision also had to do with the claim structure of the term flange and that's why i wanted to show you the sights this is the as mc the alleged infringing slander and this was found by a of the work is irrelevant to most of the fighting in that finding which was upheld by the i d c it did not review the finding of the o j he said that there was insufficient evidence of how to integrate  a retainer clamp there was insufficient evidence about the choices of how to solve the two problems of loose parts and knees replacements there was insufficient evidence of how the choice was made there as opposed to all of the possible choices that was the pinning of the i t c in two thousand and eight we had another trial in two thousand and ten in that crowd basically the same evidence for was presented by the challenges as the obvious but there was one change as to the presentation from norton we presented a witness named john what of john both may have been the perfect witness to a pine pond what a person of murder is still in the close so close need to take a look at this and decide is that foresight in general retaining i would submit that it is and that it has multiple sides many more than four that is not a rectangle it's some other sort of  ok the but i'd like to address two points if i may it's first this notion generally rectangular which i think the court's questions are pointed in the right direction in terms and the view that one looks at is from the clamp as it functions as it the clamp after all is designed to engage the of the flange and as as a cord will recall in the northern one opinion it looked at the face of the flange to determine whether it was generally repairing dealer and it's that it's the face of the clan i submit that dictates the proper view of is it generally rectangular and you clearly have four sides and i think the core of one of your eyes pointed out that there actually is witness testimony on both sides favoring the view that this is a four sided i generally retain to a clam there is mr which can't be testimony w another that's right i don't i don't think that's a fair characterization of the clam and particularly in light of the norman decision and how it was applied to the flanges and what the expert testimony is regarding the flange and also what th commission on and that was that was the hinge on the original on infringement finding and having found that only two rooms were required the court then found an infringement  the flange itself was four sided precisely because or that the new style connector was four sided because of the alignment details on the top and the bottom in the wing like projections form the four sides and at the alignment details couldn't be ignored you couldn't call it two sided device because these alignment details actually perform a function which is to hold the flange from twisting and again that the wings perform squeezing function like the mormons position today i would assume it is is they would like one claim construction for infringement they wanted a broader claim construction they got it and then now they come in and haven't got the pla and the intervening slugs will call them which is a concept of the l g a introduced into it they perform no function at all in this clam the clam if the two strikers the front in the rear stride are and the alignment details that are what engage the flange they hold it in place and they clamp it and achieve the the the clamping function and there is of course what what this case is all about to prove domestic industry because if plants had intervening slow side it also had to do this to prove infringement because the s and c plant also had that intervening slope side to this where did the find what generally rectangular was and it wasn't defeated by intervening slope side no one in the first appeal argued intervening slope side no one at the second hearing argued intervening flip side it wasn't until the a get back to write his decision that he all of a sudden said sue a sponte i see intervening flip sides and that was the first time that came up and so it's in conflict with north koreans positions both with respect to domestic industry generally rectangular would have something with round corners if you have a rectangle usually around some of the corners where you can say that's not a perfect rectangle well rather than round the corners when that just lands still have something that's generally rectangular and as you say it has no function whatsoever what they do is they make it generally rectangular so that it works so that it clamps the rectangular flange and i think your honor was addressing in the cleanup like you would agree generally rectangular right  admission of your greens expert at the first hearing where he said that the only difference was the hinge he admitted that the s n c old style connector was generally rectangular the i t c was invited to rely upon the i incorrectly later he did not he did not correct himself later what he did was he looked at it from a different view and he said well if i change the view of the instruction the ale jade's the ale jay said no you can't you can't escape your admission in the l me it's also in it's also in the id where the hail j says he tried to get out of this admission but he just couldn't in the old style new style connectors of the same and the i t c also say that intervening slow side determination by the l g a was contrary to nor grants infringement in domestic industry arguments they also said that the federal circuit in this case failed that generally rectangle related to the overall shape and that therefore the old file connector was wrecked generally rectangular and so that has to be reviewed on the substantial evidence standard and there certainly was a standstill evidence based upon their looking at everything there are a lying upon the admission by north koreans experts they're relying upon dr trucker's testimony and that should be substantial evidence found from the wording in the patent itself which i submitted is not the legal standard you can't use the patents on for motivation there's no evidence of other motivation but even if that's all true why didn't the engineers at s m c or any other show non obviousness in fact when i didn't trials and one of the things we used as a juror is can you prove that you don't speak chinese and of course nobody can prove that because you can't prove a negative and there's no nonetheless submit that mr wolfe was the perfect witness to prove that the combination of these units or even the selection of the c of these elements of his hat was not obvious to a real person still in the yard set and says oh it's obvious it's common sense looking at the result i submit that's not not enough to prove obviousness and i think the real crux of this case beside the shaky shape is it is a quick count if if the elements didn't exist in  who were working on these things at the time he didn't do anything he couldn't even tell me how the f r l's and his very own lab m in mit were connected and he said he did not review the commercial selection of