able and i don't see where you produced and a contrary evidence that would raise a genuine issue of material fact consume tell us where the contrary evidence is certainly on the contrary we don't know that's that's the thing it could be december that would be days before the critical day but it says a plan to do it and it says that in the future so it's sometime thereafter and the thing about greenspan's testimony is it was done in a  dollars to buy and a full scale rollout well for whatever reason they did not say a whole scale to the kids web enabled and the district court which doesn't discuss any of this this this key issue and unfortunately for some reason the district court got confused with the plaintiffs arguing about the technical enablement the web enabled it is very detailed documents of what it takes to put the again the st movie invoices are just hearsay what's being shipped so you do need evidence of what exactly is being checked not just somebody saying that it's three point one and the come during the summer and how fast they were working i mean there was against that you have to raise a genuine issue of material fact and all you have is a statement that that refers to a full scale rollout o perform the due diligence to ensure that they do not accuse prior art of infringement but a plaintiff is the master of its case it chooses what products to accuse and when the plaintiff overreaches by accusing him in bringing in a product that turns out to be prior art this court precedent in evans cooling it's clear that the patent he bears the consequences of that choice and it's accusation serves in his admission that the product meets all elements of the claims so that all the defendant need to do is show in validity by proving that the accused product was in fact on sale before the critical date here the district court followed unschooling it held big bad tune to the consequences of its choice i think that being repeatedly affirmed the past novices finding that what is your what is your response to your friend on the other side who said that that you didn't raise this on sale issue if it's so clear why would you have gone through all of those in particular the during the during the reexamined the patent office found that the online documentation for three point the product before three point one because the patent office had already made those findings it was a short cut so to speak to show that the web an ailment piece would have been on obvious addition to what was already in existence and what the patent office had already web enabled piece to what the patent office had already found but i don't know what he did i understand what you did but my question is wouldn't it have been a shorter putt to just say that that that web enable feature existed in a product that was already on sale before the critical date would have been your honor except that that requires that f t p have documentation and other evidence to show that every element of the claim is in the three point one product and with a product that had just been launched on sale and given that this was back in one thousand nine hundred and seven the documentary evidence was harder to come by  and in this case the we did what we did not have in the p t o you're in the c b m proceeding is what we had in from the district court which is repeated and specific allegations by big that every single element of claim fifteen was in our thirty three point one that is what the district court said made this case different from the p t o and that is that form the basis for an validity in the district court  the on sale evidence in this case was not genuinely disputed and it was thorough including contract with f a p customers the shipping record testimony from mr rogan kemper missed this year mr nuber they they not only technical software elements required to create the accused product that they're applying for and specifically again as the court noted in the in mr reich's argument the question the big boon raises is whether our thirty three point one was fully enabled but i think that the did not make a distinction between our thirty three point one before the critical date and after the baboons that there are thirty three point one did have weapon ableman and was quote modified versions of our three release three zero which include web functionality and then it said those products include our three really three point one the big bo was under the assumption that our thirty three point one was not sold until after the critical date that was a wrong assumption and that is the same assumption that has been made in the other in the cases in this court precedent than more and try to show that what was sold pre critical data didn't have the web enable an element i question whether that's allowed under schooling but in any event it doesn't matter here because even though there even if there could be a way for a pat a a element by element comparison of the features of our thirty three dollars and the claims you know and could we have done case and the van moore case which the court sided relying on of unschooling i don't see there's not a statement one way or the other whether it's an admission whether or whether it's a presumption that is  year the district court got it exactly right because there was nothing that was rebutted big baboo provided no evidence whatsoever that there was that the that the r thirty three dollars product was not web the greenspan declaration all of those articles that cite are preclinical date and are corroborating not contradicting the evidence of the shipping records and of mr rogan camper thank you thank a counselor cases submitted