to structure the whole infringement you were collapses into one of the law it's essentially plain destruction one recent case and that is the minute decision we're seventy six f there are thirteen seventy eight and there are six others what we  crown the very tips of the printers which is what we're talking about here most certainly is involved in the full service and there is absolutely no doubt that courses expert conceded at trial that that was the case case which was addressed by the examiner there was a farming by the examiner of these little teeny tiny stables which occupied virtually no real estate on the last risk that were sufficient to take it outside of substantial  that was their position now if i understand correctly the court has changed its position in the second trial to say that the tubular member now extends to incorporate at least one of the of the u shape in the plane what they're grappling with is what is it you're supposed to measure and this is a think one of the things that we're we're mixing up in this case the the plane requires the wall surface to have a substantial uniform important is responsible position to be a c s motions and the court is states that the parties have are now in agreement for the purpose of this trial the two thousand factor that the and i are standard whole meets the limitations and claim twenty three of the seven sixty that require to be remember having a wall service so when the jury comes back and asks about wall service why isn't it just for the trial court to say that issue is not  pertains to the last issue in the jury instructions and i believe this is the two thousand and five trial in fact i'm sure it was twenty two seven zero six the court instructed on waltz your and instructed with the language the outer surface of the tubular member must be disposed in the consulate to complain yes why did she instruct on that issue since it sounds like that was exactly what had been conceded on that on the jury could find non infringement because of non this wall surface limitation not having it's not if the court was correct in saying that that has been conceded misunderstanding the the argument but the b s c says the use extend out far enough that if you use the concentric circles or the imaginary circles analysis you produce a wall my confusion on this what we had in front of a scene two thousand and three was the the version of what the trial judges said has to be found with respect to these stent tubular members which is that they have to be and we said this in the opinion they have to be disposed in the common sort of cylindrical plan now that certainly seems to apply to the subset sections and were well really the problem all stems from the fact that i think that when you speak about them all surface of a stent that's not how you would normally describe it you think of the outside of the center of the inside and you think of  wall as a barrier that sets up and suddenly you are called you've got to decide whether the wall surface standards uniform in the jury says what the wall surfaces of the stuff we don't know what it is a  rejected it they said thickness of the wall is determined by the radial distance between the outer surface of the structure and imaginary cylinder inside t with the imaginary circles in the binding was if you know dispositive or as an analogy or whatever what is important in a z e one is the statement by the court that the substantial uniform limitation has to be told on the wake of the steps it must be we have you know an absolute concession from the other side of the episodes undisputed that the wall of the skin runs from the our most point of the crown to the  this is an even stronger case than that everything was walking to school in the us so far for prosecution stoffel here we have a man stop and there is no dispute about that smooth surface is in the path point because in the prosecution