where the sides were where the services were but he did actually have the products he did actually have he actually had the product he tested the product and put it underneath his labor ward at the time to see how it worked he actually set it down drew from it and measured the angus so understand it is with the with the product it's with with the coins what's emphasized there is that there need to be for services for work service today they're either in specific locations or perform specific functions and  i don't think so because under the under the what's required to actually buy a patent is simply that there are there's a distinction made between a triangle a true trying to trying to a shape and a shape that has four services the four surface what it does is it allows for more comfort focuses on the enclosure itself it doesn't actually focus on the pad but actually on the enclosure itself looking at the at the pad the stitching helps the fire where the first of the third surfaces are and show that this is not actually a continuous curve if you c imagine what a continuous curve looks like if you continue this angle off there's a slight there's a curve there but this would be a separate her here so by actually adding this curve you're actually adding an angle and what's important is if you  the jury should have been able to deliberate because reasonable minds may differ as to this i put forward to you that with our experts declaration that there really is no this is actually two separate surfaces on to to line thirty five in gauge that the surface of the pad self can comprise multiple services so what we are arguing here is simply that although no reason someone can say that this is an entire package this isn't only one service it actually is two surfaces are and i think this right here is what's important here is because this was decided on summary judgment we think it was something that needed to go to the jury and i think just looking at this picture right here reasonable minds me to see repeating  infringement is the actual cross section of the product the rom's credit we provided that court in showing it to you now you can see it is not substantially quadrilateral the shape it does not have four sides and well actually i think that you have to read the patent claims as a whole and it talks about the include the shape of the enclosure it doesn't make any sense unless the enclosure is filled because it doesn't have a shape w scene can can be misleading if that's what you're looking at and he put the pad on a photocopy machine and that's the picture that he's been using that his expert has been using but the reality is you have to look at the cross section that's what it says right you know i don't think you can see a brick i think it's one continuous curve if you were to draw all this and think it would you know i think it's it's a continuous curtain and i think that that's exactly what the judges thought as well and there isn't a fourth surface here  it is a curve in you know i think the other important thing to look at is there were there were three main parts of this claim there's it has to be generally polyhedron and certainly polyhedron suggest straight lines it doesn't suggest specific mathematical term it means a four sided figure with major straight lines and if you were to allow a something like this with a major curved surface and only three sides to to from claiming that this is an equivalent because yes he gave that up during prosecution in order to get this patent the examiner said you know this this is anticipated by making sure all you know i'm not going to let you have this pattern it was rejected and he came in and he changed it probably got on he changed to quadrilateral very specifically and he even you know that at least three sides became four sides i mean it's very specific  and if that was only a true triangle then why isn't this all the a true quadrilateral they can't have it both ways it is reading them inconsistent i would also  just point out that the court when they did their claim construction she took into account the need to balance these softening modifiers with these specific mathematical terms she allowed for some deviation from those specific mathematical terms for because it's a soft enclosure it's padding it if it's not going to have exact corners but nonetheless it has to at least retain some of the features of those very precise mathematical terms and that's what she was balancing and we think she probably construed that and we don't think we we think it was absolute pumper that she found that we were entitled to summary judgment this you know he was to rely upon his expert but like i said has actually had  and it it contradicted everything the judge could see with her eyes it sound determination and you know i think summary judgment is appropriate here if you look at these claims together this is not a general generally polyhedron it doesn't if this is a major curve surface and it probably require straight lines everything about his specification all of all of the figures he included have straight lines all along it was never a suggestion of a curve it doesn't say anything about rounded curved and people have to be able to rely upon the claims as they're stated they have to be able to count on that and if he's even if you don't believe that he gave this up because of the prosecution history of stoppel you have to look at the all limitations really you have to read the whole claim and you can't get rid of quadrilateral polyhedron and at least four or the four periphery surfaces you have to make sure it's all there and she found that there was an element missing and we agree with they there at least one we think all three of those are missing you know the standard of review is that if there has to be no genuine issue of material fact i mean you you know you asked whether the judge should become a witness there is the key is whether there is a genuine issue of material fact and we don't believe there is here we think that you can look at this pad and see that there that does not meet the elements of this plan does anybody have any other questions for me or h it comes to the prosecution history stoppel it doesn't apply here because the focus was on are there for services to perform the claim functions and here that's what you have the argument that this is one continuous curve again there's no evidence of record as to whether this is one continuous curve the only evidence of record we have is our expert declaration for a little infringement we look at the pad itself including the enclosure which would include the stitching and he made his measurements from there from his measurements he came with a three hundred sixty two degree measurement this would be all for a literal infringement and we're end up rowling's did not have any