as compared to fibrous material why is that argument sufficient to apprise the i t c o u argument regarding some versus little result recently and well i think that the little resilience is perhaps wonder why we responded and said it was indefinite because the definition is pretty clear here isn't it how do you respond to that and said you didn't say i certainly didn't say that and i don't know why it is that the counsel for the other party didn't use that resilience definition itself is insufficient those two things are even further inconsistent you have an adoption of local resilience is the proper measure and at the same time the as you're saying well there's another measure there's them a kind of typical we're not going to adopt that sets those even further consistency and the fact that there are other ways to measure is doesn't say anything at all about what some resilience means so those two limit challenging the claim construction here i mean you're not saying that the kind that stretches in correct instead you're simply detailed specification in columns seven dollars and eight dollars talking about the metrics that would be satisfied in order to have a lofty batting talking about examples of materials that are in fact a lofty batting i mean there's one disclosed income please the court i'd like to address the issues that allison raised just a few minutes ago st claim construction to raise your voice just a little bit thank you claim construction is not at issue on this appeal in fact allison in i'm not sure of was me below but i'd like to know your thoughts on the argument that was made that the indefiniteness ruling was somehow inconsistent with the claim construction ruling because the claim because russian doesn't read and most of those limitations if you will know that are discussed in a column seven and eight right so the reason i was going towards the background of what was actually presented before the kind of explains her reasoning  commission does not find that the indefinite analysis somehow contradicts this claim construction if you have to look at her analysis as a whole and she starts out with saying her markman order that there is an express definition providing a specification and allison's arguments were what that express definition is and isn't definite and she says well no because a specification explains what bulk it is air and you know from the that's created by the into trying fibers and the lo because it's clear from the specification that there are multiple ways of describing this lofty batting with all these different properties and there's no reason to incorporate a specific in body image into the expressive condition so i don't see how her commissions positions are somehow contradictory on how we approach the summer properties disclosure there's no contradiction if you look at what the commission said in the commission thirteen and you compare with aspens discussion with thermal properties at pages thirty to thirty one both the commission and aspen characterized thermal properties as one of the goals of using  air which in the street right here on and that's entirely explained in the specification as to the wonderful characteristics in area joe as a has such low thermal conductivity in the whole point of using this lofty absolutely provides metrics to provide examples as as you pointed out to limit what sell number of existing products at a time for a consumer it actually has the word like law it's got a loft in the name of the product itself some gray area as to what some resilience means it's not a practical problem this case has addressed every error general blanket product but each one of the three factors in the world and it's uncontested that every single one of them as an enormous amount of reserves you can compress them to life to fifty percent and they spring back to basically one hundred percent and on the other hand the  where multiple times also if you look at the actual language that's not what it's actually saying it's saying that they're a kind of looked at me and i was saying something along the lines of what the specific instances of guidelines  with some resilience in it that is indefinite or rather that you can't even reach that construction because of all these other things that is fairly waved it was not in the petition for review really alison's argument in this briefs is that they said it was  new evidence it's a brand new walking and you know the id sees rules require that every argument argument not theory not claim every argument must be presented in the petition for review this argument federal claims properly before presented a party can make any argument support of that claim parties are not limited to the precise arguments they made below here we certainly raise the indefiniteness challenge below we raise it here in three different ways those are not separate resilience issue which everybody says is not weighed and i know that when you read through the briefing it seems like man they really have all of these all of these arguments it seems it's kind of overwhelming if you look at each one of them not a single place in the specification not a single person not a single briefing ever said what some resilience anything the ale j b pointed to the at the edge and never applied some reason it's a quote specifically regardless of how much actual reason is required we have an infringement here is what they said now that does not apply a definition of some resilience same thing with the well and they say you could look because it has examples of pencil it in and we have some requirements so what do these requirements what are these requirements exactly minimizing the value of unsupport