equivalent to the structural the corresponding structure of the interface control device or i c d inspector's favor the court should also reverse the finding that the means for providing need for mediating has a corresponding structure of the i c d interface control device this is circuitry within the peripheral device for connecting a host encryption or security and target interfaces such that the data must pass through encryption before being stored on the target for each of the queues products dr ryan identified the overall structures depicted in the color coded block in its read brief does not seriously contend whether it's a fact question but rather whether ryan identified those overall structures as the corresponding structure at all and your honour's he did i have some questions about you about this for you about this very issue on the infringement issue i understand that you're arguing that the structures are equivalent are you arguing that the structures are the same are you arguing are so he goes through for each product and st identifies the block diagram the overall structure that performs the identical function and it's undisputed that those structures do perform the identical structured is paragraph eleven dollars he identifies the structure at one of two he identifies the corresponding structure and then at paragraphs one of three through one twenty four dollars and he does this for each of the products he goes through and shows the correspondence of the host to the yeah i understand that i mean i'm  host blocks within the accused product are equivalent to the hosts in the night and paragraph nine  honor i think that he doesn't i'm not sure that he uses that word in this section this is the way the appendix is put together there's a means for  quote equivalent close quote yet his analysis goes through and explains that it is doing the same functionality and showing the correspondence he does not use the exact language equivalence at least i i don't think that it does what he did is he showed that the p c m c i is the same as the host that it does the same function that it does a the that  that it does it in the same way the analysis is to show the correspondence between the accused block diagram and the nine hundred and ten so if you go two thousand four that the host in shown in blue is connected to the encryption shown in pink through green and when you compare that to the i c d which is what he does that raises a genuine issue of fact as to whether that's equivalent to the i c d and what he says at the end of each one of these sections is after doing that analysis he says if the good at chip is found not to be equivalent of nine b so he he is doing that analysis he's saying that the can it chip or the go i s s o c is equivalent to the figure of nine b and if it's not for literal infringement it still infringes under the doctrine column eight lines nine through fourteen and column a line fifteen and lines forty through forty five dollars all of this is supported it says that the peripheral device can be the overall structure is and then once you have done that then you can perform these in substantial differences with respect to the elements or within the overall structure in the products and th material fact is it not enough and i'm asking is it not not enough simply to point to the different elements that compose a comprise the entire structure it's  and that's exactly what specter tried to do in this case what happens if we disagree with you on the total absence point and we say we think there is some evidence at least in the spec structure corresponding start with the means for providing if your honour's have any questions the voice cases directly on point they don't have a response to mr gomes mr ct referral i think he was referring to the default proof credit card case where there was a an expert that could not supplant where there is no evidence or zero structure and here as judge sole pointed out as we pointed out there is corresponding that he didn't use in the precise language of function way result however the substance of dr ryan's analysis is to show that it's performing the identical function the same way to achieve the same result that it's the substance of the analysis and not whether he uses magic words that the court should be looking at in the paragraph that we've cited in our in our briefing and in each in throughout each of these paragraphs after he  i think that we're dealing here with more than just magic words we're talking about it a legal test and the less the test is accurately set out and stated then how do we know that the test just been met or not so he does set forth and it's not so early there are multiple means plus function elements that were not challenged in the briefing and in his expert report and a pause i'm not going to be able to give you the pin site right now he does go through that structure analysis the function way result analysis for each of those means less function by the time we get to f which is the last of these means plus function elements at that point he's doing you know he is doing some shorthand and he saying this is the overall structure that corresponds then he gives the paragraphs and shows how it corresponds and then he says to the extent this is not equivalent for literal infringement it is equivalent for doctrine of equivalence and then he goes through and explains why for example in paragraph one hundred and thirteen dollars he does that equivalence analysis again for the deal we and he does that it seems it seems to me that he explains the components that you would use in order to to show the how but but that argument is made i mean i don't see the i don't see that that is a lie in this testimony i understand your honor but if you hear because this is the structures that he's pointing to really are almost identical the end they're equivalent i'm not saying they're identical but they are very close to the structures in i c d and comparing those that we have in the color coded and that mr ct pointed out at  twenty and twenty one of really does show that it is connected exactly the same way and that evidence is sufficient itself to support a jury determination even if he didn't say function was the best because there's just seems to me that the problem is that and additions of the specific structure pointed out circuits there's a lot of other things happening in the electrical circuits that may or may not affect the function where the result of the pieces of the function that you've pointed out by not having a doubt vidas single structure we don't know we just have to assume that all the other electrical activity this knowing on related to the structure you point out we have soo have to assume the very not having that's not having any effect on the function where result will your honor  structure you would be saying you would be are arguing that there is no interactive effect on from the other functions sixty two points your honor st the court held in i m s caterpillar cross medical and all of those cases there were other structures that performed other functions and those are not relevant to the analysis here and at trial we would develop that testimony that those elements have nothing to do with the perform structure and mr coty identified the stuff in the red box mr that does correspond exactly to the parts of those chips that dr ryan identified in the subsequent paragraph so these really are demonstrative of his analysis and it's the comparison of those that gives rise to a a genuine issue of fact that a jury could find even though they your honor we would ask that the court reverse the summary judgment on infringement because when you look at the totality of that evidence there is sufficient evidence to support a jury analysis of structural the reciting function and the one hundred and thirty five is properly incorporated as a separate alternative independent basis for reversal and appoints honors to the auto block case which