conjunction with and i feel are they held all of the claims of the patent and valid and we feel that there are numerous ferrers that are not supported by substantial evidence in the case and that there are frequent instances where they're actually art st of all the the patent deals here with a very unique type of bed bug trap on the stones this is not esoteric not like tripe and stuff like that but it is a very simple structure that enables the that and they can't get out on the sides because it's movement why wouldn't that they just claim that climb back up the ladder and get to their victims which are the people sleeping in the back so if that's the back up into the cellar how would this invention work you're saying one of the purposes of that someone living in the house can figure out where the bugs came from somewhere else or from the bed if in fact that retainer at the leg is not  sunlight they're nocturnal insects they come out at night and they go in feast on the human being in the bed and then we're very big as we call  and then when they're done feasting it takes some an hour or so which usually after midnight they go back down and go back into their hiding places their places of refuge which are someplace in the room this is the habit you correct your honor that they could turn around and go back up into the bed and try to fight on a hiding place there and this trap would not connect with those type of bed bugs but that's not their normal have they're not your precluding them from going to their regular places of put a bad leg in any trap so that's you think the biggest difference between the prior art and your invention is the teaching to put a bet into the center section again of say figure five generally no that's not the only into section g g convert section g into a pitfall track of general it could do the head if there were teachings in the art to place the trap under the but that brings us back to the st point which it isn't that the main difference between the prior art and your invention is the idea of putting the leg into the center section you're not because you're saying that you have to put the leg in the center section then the center section becomes a football trap and now you have a two pitfall trap trap with if you know there's a few other things you're not a lot of the other the other thing is that you have that center that gee that doesn't happen that's not designed to capture the outer it fall trap to keep the insects in there but there's no teaching that the section g that you're talking about is a big receptacles there's no reason to house with resurfaces there there's no reason to have  think their original finding was they assumed that the structure of two pitfall traps is already in general rich even though he doesn't discuss it right they are missing the fact that they do vertical walls do not form a trap you have to have something else like a slippery surfaces or the power to disable the climbing ability of the inside but that was my own standing wasn't correct me if this is wrong but my understanding was that slippery surface was an added element to generate so that you end up with obviousness based on both the general structure and slippery otherwise generates would have been anticipated that is correct you have to add that many women that had to be a teaching somehow if there had to be a motivation to cause the person of ordinary skill in the art to add slippery surfaces and what we're saying is there is no motivation to do that for several reasons one is if you look at generational move again we're starting with general rich which is this i call a single pitfall trap that has a bait one of the main errors that it's in the p tat there there's there's also just there's another element is related to that where they also relied upon hindsight the bad or the floor of that  chair or bed in order to be supported in that and that doesn't come from any of the prior art that's soley conscious but teaching and making that floor a support structure that comes entirely from the  generation to a double pitfall trap instead of the single trap which it is again i want to emphasize none of the prior art has a double pitfall trap none of the traps in the prior art have any sort of a because they don't have double pitfall traps they don't have the believe to discern between b without substantial evidence to support his action because jennings is silent on whether or not it uses tract as you well know that patents are just written to describe the invention they don't have to describe all the environment everything that's around it and consequently is improper when a patent is silent on a particular issue such as whether the bait is used or not you cannot draw a negative inference is that in fact that it is please the court as this court recognised general express exposes every structural limitation of the claim that the trap except generates does not express its close whether central arguments that my friend makes that are directed towards intended he uses which are not sufficient to distinguish the hadley distinguish the claimed just doesn't distinguish the structure that we have here it's just that you could put that log in there but by the way the claims don't require that that log be in there or  say a bad leg or another object and the specification adds explains that the bad leg doesn't even have to be in there the claim say it only needs to be capable of putting about like in there but the best vacation teache use the claim tray out with a printer like in it or just near where people are i mean that's an expressed teaching in the specification let me and you think that it really was a good one to find the oh it's just card support leg receiving receptacle and just not meaning that the support that the receptacle has to be supporting a leg but only create the bill of supporting the leg and it could be used in any other writing the claim to require the presence of the leg you know to get written prior art perhaps or perhaps anticipating that that's the only sensible use and therefore you'd be inducing infringement if you said here's the way the best way to use the trap so i mean it doesn't seem to me impossible to imagine to read this language to suggest that the leg has to be there but your contention is that's not the way the four is really well i think that's i think that's an overly narrow reading especially since the claims state that they are just limited to a furniture lay their furniture legs or other object which is that's a huge genus or other object there's no i mean if you look at the specification of examples of other objects it could be benched the sofa cheer kitchen appliances a walk wheelchair wheels parent on devices computers t v s stereos electronic devices or other equipment i mean this is a whole lot of things that this that they claim device could have inserted have any questions related to these other issues i would just like to there was one thing that i did also want to point out in response to this notion of a free and that is that general just plain aid so that any insect reaching that either coming down from a part of your leg or making it over the bodies of other bugs to get to federal space she would similarly be trapped in th dogs catching space k and the mere fact they are in that area and there may be something attracting the insects to that area doesn't get them in to the capturing space   i think that's the end of my time