and terrorists in a sense yes but the court answered even before that in the amos case in one nine hundred ninety one and it amas the court said the t are we offered evidence from a machinist who was a person having scale and the ark and the trial judge said that's not true you would agree that this case sort of stands or falls on the eye from your standpoint stands or falls on the strength of the i free to get liberation yes if you didn't have that you would be in front of us right i think the answer to that has to be yes you would i'm willing to concede that job so we have to do so doesn't really come down into the question of whether what mr i afraid he says in his declaration is enough to as a matter of law to get over the hurdle of two fifty one no to the matter i would agree with you except for one one cases starting with the industrial chemicals amos riall e and tories that judge read imagine if those cases stand for the proposition that a p c isn't good enough all we offered here was evidence from a person with skill in the art he said he read the original patents disclosure and a person with skill in the art would understand that truth so why does that help you i mean this is the problem for me is that even though there are some strain this strain of references to general machining almost everything that talks about is in terms of late being or things that are of the purpose of how do we know that i'm looking at this pacification you may not know because you're not people you're not machines for not that's why i ask you what evidence he relied on and specification because otherwise you're just worker with a recognized that their computer actually some components could serve the same purpose and then he goes on to explain because an example put that last thing you cited what's his support for that in the specification some additional limitations which are you know specifically mentioned that are specifically excluded and we said that's not up and so if we read this message petion is being directed all  arbors and you can't point to anything else besides plaything or verse then why isn't this just exactly like an tories where the argument is well you could have understood this even if it doesn't specifically reference it well it's let me answer the first question first since i don't think it has to be in the specification if somebody skilled in the are a machinist with his knowledge about those processes can read the pattern and understand it's optional and i think paragraph nineteen that's what he's have to point to something in the us in this to get to the expert decoration you know i mean the expert can't just come in and out of the blue and say but doesn't talk about this but i would say that this clearly includes it an artisan would understand i mean you could have gotten the same thing in an tarries i know probably wasn't there but you could have got the expert to him and say well this specification doesn't talk about these additional health and safety features which i think that's what without it but everybody knows that you would have wanted it was so skilled artists and would have understood the patent to disclose well that's not right at that's the same thing here is this is all directing out late thing there's nothing that i would suggest how would it have to be changed i would suggest very very little you could add one more to this patent option we were discussing harbors us or you know undecided can we get expert testimony you still have to have something that high here too and if you don't have anything to tie it to then i don't see how the expert testimony helps you i would simply have that let me go back to my point which is what would the path look like if we if we put in the arbitrary thing our expert said an artisan who was reading the path and the law says title thirty five from top to bottom s patents are to be read by artists and not by lawyers not one judges so that even the artists are reading the pen has got to base his his opinion on on the panelist on the written description or some part of the claim or something and say i feel i just decision and on this paragraph or these words and i agree with judge huge i mean we don't  fixture with r vers what he was saying is that he could read the patent and figure out another invention not disclosed in the specification that didn't have arbors and this is this is not territory that has not already been decided by this court and by the supreme court as the industrial chemicals core stated it is not enough that an invention might have been claimed in the original patent because it was suggested or indicated in the specification rather the specification must clearly us industrial the hint suggestion or indication that water was optional was not enough to save the reissue claims so i think judge issues you hit on important point that it could make all the difference in the world if we use the word optional with viewers was actually mentioned then you might be able to argue that there were some teaching that something other than or verse for the arbors could be admitted from i mean i find this difficult to get on summary judgment so even if it's a factual question and we can stra says is that someone reading this invention would know that there are other things that could be used other than arbors in other cutting machines to do that not that the pattern itself teaches these alternatives just for a purpose or something just then why would that  that's not enough because what the cases say is that for instance us industrial says it must appear from the face of the instrument that what is covered by the reissue was intended to have been covered in secured by the original the us industrial specifically says what the role of expert testimony is the court can receive expert evidence to ascertain the meaning of a technical or scientific term or term of art so that the court may be aided in understanding not what the insurance mean but what they actually say so at best here here with what they're saying is someone could read the specification and they would extrapolate this to another invention that they would come up with there is no testimony from mr i've radio as the court has pointed out saying  this patent actually teaches a fixture without