with that ok conclusions both either together or separately require reversal by this court octane fitness required the district court to consider the to quality of circumstances in determining whether the case was exception tropics that that you didn't really develop anything below and then you got a motion for a filed under seal and you don't submit the entirety of the motion in your record so how am i supposed to figure out what you exceptional what is it that she didn't do this sort of that you know a whole lot of non exceptional things get together add up to something else optional i think giving the more cour suppose i do not read the opinion to place of that kind of reliance on the presumption coming out but rather on the assessment of each of the things that you received it namely whether the claim construction position and that of it passage whatever the column is and in the patent to the specification about the key term you know while they ended up being wrong about it we really wasn't and that reasonable prior there's no ambiguity there's no dispute about that and he got wrapped around my room about whether to formal ball was a form of lack of better he said no and judge outness then seized on that and said well gee w looking back at what you included i think it was correct that you virtually said nothing about any validity position other than objecting to this claim construction or saying that your claim construction is so reasonable that there is necessarily object tenuous sessions with respect to the formal activator there was a lot of circular reasoning he put forward a form expert report where he said i looked at the file history and i looked at the prior or when i took his deposition he said he hadn't looked at the file history and he had not looked at the prior art and yet the court were not of its way to give dr half that of the benefit of the doubt i asked him very specifically do you have significance of mr lee's testimony with us from let me ask you you said that every step of the way you gave them a chance to have to back out but one of the things i was shocked at with the letter that you sent saying you can settle this if you pay are objective again reasonable and that that was the basis for any finding of an exceptional case you are the position of we talk is that the proffered claim construction was subjectively and reasonable in light of the special occasion because it didn't give the specification its full breath in the attempted to limit they claim and they and they claim construction sholay two figures eight nine nine and nine exceptional case wanting fees and that appendix a seven through eight in addition when you read the case when you read the opinion judge at this meets clear that not only did she consider all the evidence that was presented specification as a whole this is one selection ahead of the specification it uses the term boy like we believe it was reasonable and certainly reasonable for the court to conclude that it was not an unreasonable position  the two five five pattern taught each limitation of the clinton and he pointed to some testimony but there's also other testimony at appendix thirty two hundred seven tranche of two ninety eight the three hundred churchill attempts to take it in isolation but when you read it as a whole it doesn't support the conclusion that this case is exceptional in every instance church or want to focus on a few statements by an inventor churcher wants to focus on one part of the specification but that is the whole the court found that what sure but in did was reasonable and more importantly there's nothing in the record that anything that would be a problem but the potential problems don't end there you also have to look as a reviewing court and what was done with each of the saying this or that was looked at and make sure that each one of those things falls into a range of reasonableness or discretion so the fact that everything was looked at you know maybe you're fifty percent of the way there but there's a remaining fifty percent why is the claim construction reasonable why reasonable even if it's in the plea and correct to say that all dark combination language doesn't really include a ball sitting on top of a dark yes and in addition allowance that there was no discussion about playing thirteen or fifteen during the prosecution and the fact that the two five five was on the face of the pap so is the dish are quite made a factual finding his testimony was absolutely consistent she disagreed with the thing and i'm not going to remember the specifics but i think one of churchill's charges has to do with the asserted inconsistency between what you said in europe and what you said here and it's true that there's a general principle that over the years this court has articulated that says be very very careful about turf reading statements made in different legal for outside the united states but what the explanation for why whatever these two statements are are is a squarely inconsistent well i first of all if you look at what happened in europe is they more specifically clean the  cally because only the claims of the patent going to be translated into all of the languages in europe and we are here in the u s where sometimes if the clean the formal black to be doesn't have a customary meaning we can look to the specification to truly understand that it's more difficult for that to be done in europe because the specification may not be in the language so what we what we thought and what we presented to the district court is because the different giving too much weight to the statements but what's important here is the district court didn't ignore that evidence she addressed churchill's argument on it and she came to her own conclusion as to what it how it supported their  position and again there's nothing in the record that says she abused her discretion in coming to that conclusion overall if you look at this if you look at the testimony that specification in a whole if you look at everything the district what it here there's nothing to suggest that she abused her discretion she wrote a very detailed opinion she discussed the presumption of liberty but only to note that she didn't change the standard upon that weight she was right to analyze all the other evidence as she did and the spite what church you want to say either we're just not except in what she said because again she said that she considered these matters separately and collectively and they just did not come to the opting fitness standard which says it's the rare case with that stands out and in fact she cited western felt in a district court case that at twelve thirty in kind it and hockey line at eighty nine and we separately analyze it and then look at it collectively and ask yourself looking at all of these issues does this case stand out from all others we believe this case does not enter from a with respect to the allowance i call the court's attention to the fact that we continue to hear about the importance of a written there is no mention of any written this for previously in the tax evasion said the ring was never claimed we agree it was never claim and yet we