trap and the prior art and the differences between crimes and the prior art secondary consideration yes rather substantial secondary considerations and those are the striker's comments that the expert in his declaration and in his chart does not say that may will prevent compression across the fracture and that's a very important claimed element the structure disclosed in that clancy reference is the use of these cave wires inserted per cutaneous see the words inserted through the skin and inserted for a period of time and it eight week mark after insertion the would be removed and not to remain and not left implanted in a patient where as the structure disclosed in the may reference contemplates a plate that would be inserted and implanted into a patient screwed into disputed question of fact presented on the record as to how these various structures operated and what effect the use of pins might be in an implant situation placed in the ball as the plate is being aligned and screwed into the fractured and stable fragment and those pins those guidelines are just never traversed to fracture and never add to the stable b and never and do not fix a fracture and are only in there temporarily and our subsequent your move after the fracture is so occurred with the bones but with the screws in the plate that's what  stryker's position was his would go into the guide wire holes eight and that said that there were no further statement of those and so what there has to be further stated in the claim to require more than was i know in the in the brief there's lots of discussion about well there are all kinds of genuine issues to material that what if people indeed there are no genuine issues have been cracked because it's apparent that everybody is in agreement as to what the reference is disclosed then the question is really going to want to look at the old in with conclusion of obvious totally immobilize the arm from the shoulder to the rest stabilize sort of pinched off the old striker didn't mention that in their brief but didn't contest we clearly they perform the function of providing a place where the screw can be inserted and attached to a bone that was here in the any evidence or testimony any anything to suggest that well maybe those holes could also perform other functions and that those are the functions would be relevant to this question of obviousness for example they could perform the function of providing  as pin yes they come out they're not permanent they don't compress they don't cross fracture they don't go into the bone on the other side and so i guess my question would be like yours when it is does that really this is if this is reversed if it is questions of fact for the jury then that would be the safe way to proceed but i think it's clear on its face there's nothing in this prior art that has to claim dominance or that it the key features of the prior art really are disputed and here's how the goals there's no dispute that the prior art had plates for screw with screws to fix these types of fractures there's no dispute that the prior art used the pinning mechanism to treat fractures where there were small fragments broken away from the main bone this is always good about that and as far as m there's no dispute least to this extent it was a plate to be implanted for fractures of the distal and it had holes of different sizes one hole was smaller than the other for god or his dispute about what their god were does and i difference there to that extent but again and maybe life can bone on the other side there's nothing in me to get that either that's right but that goes to anticipation that while it's also relevant in the context of obviousness to the extent that to support your summary judgment motion the no i think that seems like a pretty substantial factual dispute that would control the outcome well or meetings the question of whether it was a speech properly raise there is no dispute the district court level that experience because you know a catheter and knowing how to use one doesn't get you to a position where you're qualified to assess bone fragments than pins and guide wires and all of that medical devices really rough dead catheters there's all kinds me eight thirty two and three forty five and they didn't raise that on appeal last time and now it's the law of the case now listen when we were put we had a case where they had no expert opinion there must be there must be some articulated reasoning with some right underpinning to support the legal conclusion of the we we're in the court's order do you find that a predictable result one time i'm looking for that i'm looking for the language in order that meet the standard required by the supreme court by putting into the whole i mean for example you have paragraph sixty nine crime it simply combined elements from two methods well known at the time for setting risk ok but those two methods were different about the problem of pin migration you know ok there's a common sense solutions would be a while you want to stabilize the pen and i think that's that's based on fiber declaration i think that's common sense analysis that i don't find in the order well i think it is you know i have no idea whether that's what the district court was thinking up or what what the record might reflect whether that's a proper basis for an obvious a middling match one ordinary still our own he didn't get that he went and took it back i mean you're stopping short you haven't said exactly what you say he said but then you're going to read later pages which by the way i had to find at the end of the appendix they weren't thought of contemporaneous but he can't that he says well no it's not bone medical devices would be sufficient so you can't say that his own testimony definitively prevents him from being one of the killed in the ark because in art because i didn't see anything particular to that in your summary judgment opposition which is what i was just getting because i thought surely you'd raised it i thought i saw it somewhere but i didn't just find it in your summary judgment opposition and you're right i don't think we did i think what we said was do jury has the right to to a very extraordinary remedy in greece and you got it wrong twice doesn't seem to me to be enough to necessarily reassigning reason i think it is just the way