is pleased to recognize the participation today of judge james robertson from the united states district court for the district of columbia sitting with us as a visitor extra duty or extra devotion to the ministration of justice so we appreciate his presence and to face him and his willingness of his court to lend him the panel has before a total of six cases two of them will be submitted later today on the briefs without oral argument they are appeal number zero seven dash seventy one zero four keel versus department of veterans affairs and appeal number zero seven dash thirty one thirty nine hudson vs the department of health and human services on our fourth case argument list will hear argument first in appeal number zero six dash fifteen seventy one a dented g m b h versus work so arm mr reynolds good morning welcome to you please proceed it can be discerned that despite the existence of a license agreement that somehow there is a lack of sufficient adversity of interest absolutely or two where where in the opinion of the displayed this bracket at a trade show many months ago we need you our us as an agent to hurry up and immediately file in order to avoid the passage of the one year grace period and by attaching a proposed us application to be filed it seems to me the logic is that in order to beat the one year time british sales guy russell was not interested in my recollection is that he testified at the trial and gave recollection testimony which interested then he can't succeed in corroborating the first witness who's admittedly interested but if we agree with judge pairing that mr shaw is not interested you seem to be think getting that  mr reynolds whatever you want to rely on need to corroborate that the bracket shown in exhibit sixty one and no other bracket is what was displayed at the orlando trade show mr i may have misspoke i wasn't trying to suggest that the particular bracket shown in that exhibit or the similar photograph was the precise actual physical object but it was a depiction of what the marketing my product i'd like to so market it in great britain and misters should all thanks to him exhibit seventeen which contains photographs that are really consistent with exhibit sixty one which is the trade sure if it was of sufficient concern to the inventors that they had their attorney immediately try to follow up with the us application letter i said i would much prefer to get on a case with a photograph of the interested parties dated show i was actually i displayed but there really wasn't anything no brochures no posters no photographs no correspondent no handouts no diagrams nothing of question was really one of the issues present in the jury should we is there any particular deference that we should be paying to the jury's verdict because of that well the proper ation far as i have read the court's precedent is even if it would have been a destruction the court would have had to have given if neither party sought it the doesn't seem like it's appropriate to complain about it at this l from doctors on hand and this is a great feature having a hole in the air through his father i feel this is not a case where he may truly believe that he was the inventor turned out to be wrong this is a case where he saw our product