reversing the summary to this court found in the first appeal that the district court's judgment that nothing that was withheld from what you focus on with respect to the  x testimony wasn't corroborated yes and the argument is that the letters corroborate i don't suppose you're disputing that are you actually in the second or exam yes your honor the letters there the letters both made it perfectly clear that the letter in the attachment were about the style of c not the s s g l so that the application that was attached and close with the first amendment with the first letter and the application the abandon application was of record that providing the letter in addition would have done is make it even more clear that it not only wasn't but for material it wasn't even material because the  through and and that and that in the end he talks about that being shown in the comfort zone area and then you have a letter which says yes within this line we did that there were products that  made has a fabric of ny law that allows bleed through and the nylon product is the product that mr that the letters are addressing that's not true the it talks about the product line he doesn't talk about one single pro  he talks about he talks about i think the attachment in the in the first one the first letter that has the application makes it clear that it is not a law and not coolmax that they're using and bringing this to the attention of the p t o as a potential particularly as potential corroboration of contests it is clear that he is he is talking about yes he is talking you were intending to argue that the contest declaration was wholly uncorroborated don't you think you would have feel an obligation to say now of course there is this letter from  but we think schoolish is mistaken in here so why your honor i mean i may well have a more cautious approach than counsel had in this case but i don't know that one can say that he omitted a material reference and that he did it with deceptive and test wrong to say that this is uncorroborated if you have something in which well somebody is saying whether you believe it or not it's exactly the contrary of what you're saying i where he said he didn't receive the red letter what's the read his testimony about the letters was that he was that the second letter went straight from still oppose to outside counsel and i don't think the records is at all clear that mr colton definitely ever saw the second letter the first letter was sent to his bass mr arbor gas and i think his testimony was it marked the equivalent i'm not quoting what it must have come through me but it was still one thousand nine hundred ninety nine letter and we are now we're through the two thousand and four original allowance were through the two thousand and six summary judgment motion were in the second re exam and a non lawyer is sitting back there and forgotten about the letter it's not clear he never got to that he wasn't asked but is there was ever asked i don't think the record is clear whether he recalled that i think the testimony your honor was that he that he thinks he knew he was originally aware of the boss i don't think the record is clear one way or another as to whether he remembered it in sufficient detail to know anything about it in two thousand and eleven or twelve years later during the second  he has to have mr coleman remember it five years later realize its material and then make it as as has inconceivable and that the only thing the judge that the district court found was that the protective order did not preclude counsel giving it to him although it doesn't compel them to it just doesn't preclude it and that since he was in effect the interface with the company with the lawyers that he would have wanted to see everything in the litigation and therefore he would have seen this but clinton who was only reciting what he had been told the protective order said he was not purporting to recite it because he never read it and the court disbelieves both of his counsel about what the protective order did or did not permit them to do like the court's decisions and star scientific in the other cases that doesn't lead to an inference the other way or the permitting an inference the other way without more proof that counsel actually did split the saying up and determine what they could provide to him and what did and as a matter of fact it is entirely reasonable i submit for counsel to be a little trepidation whatever the right adjective would be about doing approach it with trepidation to do that as in two thousand and twelve a year after these events six material but we take the letters as material and and he said you know well your honor then i have to go back and address those letters and because i understand that the district court found on the bas letters and the decorations and the declaration are enough to sustain a judge that's right that's my question if the court found that they were in fact bought for material and the court found that mr col then despite any finding of record that mr cole than remembered them in such specificity and that mr kerr than a non warrior understood that they were material and the you actually need i mean that's one where the defended deny receiving it said i got the later version of it and and in fact they did find not that i acknowledge you're not going confession but they improve and discovery they did find that the defendant had received the earlier version because he approved it for publication he also denied knowledge of materiality of reference because he said well that reference talks about certain tests and when we did the test they failed and there was extrinsic evidence that some of the tests the past so his basis for saying i didn't get that or i didn't remember it or i didn't understand it krevin repeatedly explained his understanding was more to it than just disbelieving this testimony because he also admitted that he was primarily responsible for supervising where he well your honor i compared to the star scientific decision when you're talking about the people who are responsible for firing council they clearly at authority to do it so they were motivated to know what was going on to mean he was the interface but he's not a warrior there's i mean there there brief talking about all the litigation this isn't the only case that was going we're on the other side of a number of cases that have been here before with their bring mr clinton in his for his part time side job is basically handling interface with the lawyers but what that the materiality issue here from his his his knowledge materiality his understanding of materiality in a reexamine is a print publication and it's pretty nuanced to the lawyers as to how when his lawyer stands up and starts talking about contests that puts on sale during the course of these cases without full review runs the risk of degrading the integrity of both the patent system in we're probably not going to be able to rescue the integrity of the patent system for further degraded by any single decision in this case wanted to get to the fact that mr called and just not acknowledged and there's no other direct evidence of his knowledge of the two thousand and six assists g l exhibits why it is that that part of the district  his response was i was responsible for overseeing them yes question where you're responsible for supervising all intellectual property litigation and i will what the response was yes are you responsible for the reexamination proceedings involving ohio will what  broken up so that the protected material was never segregated from the material that was not designated for attorney size only testimony both of his testimony and that of mr speed i think it was was that he never saw  attachments nice declarations were in the summary judgment attachments which we're seeing now why and how can we get from the evidence we have to support the district court's conclusion that and to be going in arguing a lack of evidence and the fact that he would have not asked his own client is there any other evidence out there and the only person he would have asked the client is mr cole and that question and it's it is inconceivable  go before a tribunal and make the assertion that no evidence exists without simply asking the question their client is there any other evidence are you aware of this is this practice going to go represent to the court and mr you make the mistake mr a guy ends the ruben's to prior art there where we aren't talking about the question of corroboration which was the issue in the second riggs and the nation was reference to prior art as that term is used in the context re examinations which would be either  characterization the briefing of the opposing counsel it may have been a misunderstanding of judge frost in a riggs emanation proceeding in order to determine whether there's a substantially question of patentability and in order to determine the actual rejections you can only rely is that once a claim is rejected or amended then one twelve happens and it's open to a re examination in the normal process you would have been in a typical examination so if you were to amend th claim in a reexamination it makes sense that the amendments the new language is not based on just what the prior art publications and patents are it goes into full power are in this case that on the first reexamination the issue before the tribunals have that one specific citation handy but i understand in the issue in that particular examination again was whether they overcome the prior art based on the fact that there are their product the that there was no prior art with jail on only one side of the fabric when mr stanley was sitting in the room and his testimony at trial was that he was just there as an observer respectfully honors when you go into a meeting and you have that knowledge and bleed through the whole point of the contest testimony plugging the gap or explaining what would one skill in the art would get out of the comfort zone at this it had coolmax it had a different fabric so in order for anything to be corroborative