the grounds to water it means coffee or something like that i think that's correct the issue in this case i think pertains to the product you say is what's referred to as a product configuration trade dress in other words they're not claiming that there is any trade dress in the craft which is odd because the main purpose for the mean appearance the overall appearance of this trade dress which is the test is dictated by those two main elements the cra in this case they indicate that the craft the clear nature of the craft is part of their trade dress well in their trial their own expert said that he had no opinion as to whether or not that the clear nature qur'an was functional or not i suggest to this court that statement itself is enough to send this back for a new trial or you can have an expert say he doesn't know anything about part top they say is part of their what they call dressing up this trade dress well the consumer products safety commission said you have to have a certain shape a lip on the inside of that on top she can turn it in for the there is only one shape for a particular purpose and that's what's known what is functionality then that means that any device that yes an alternative design is trade dress a certain function and that's not the law this t dress pertains to each and every one of these elements and if you i want to go a little bit further into what the trial court did when it made the same mistake at trial in two ways st it said i said well correct and there was no proof at trial as to the cost of the design the prove the trial that related to the cost of the product was simply materials i'd like to reply to another point here that's addressed in the letterman case and leatherman and then this goes to the issue that you raised very beginning of the argument of the point that there are various components to this trade dress that's right that's exactly right it's exact copy so what it doesn't matter in the world trade dress if you have a functional item that you should use that's not protected by patent the public has a right to copy it to the smallest bolt so we had to use hardened steel we had to use a certain type of glass and those were all parts of the manufacturing cost and therefore the cost of our home is greater then you know the cost of other therefore it doesn't provide the cost of damage the th circuit said that's not enough the nice circuits if you can't if you're going to talk about the design talk about the design don't talk about the materials that you put into the discerning that is not part of your trade dress that's exactly what happened in this case mr anderson mr botha mr anderson who said i don't know anything about the cost of these materials he provided no opinion on whether the the the device provided the cost of the energy mr bolton took the stand and he said well it depends on the material because the design itself can be made as expensive or is cheap as you would like depending on what you put into the plastic or grass or the plastic could be glass could be there in this  there is a complete failure of proof on the nd prong of what's required to show non functional and i'd like to talk a little bit about the admission now in the arlington specialities case there were admissions also evidence of alternative designs and there was also evidence of expert testimony about the non practical using this particular does not and  to match trade dress feature to be protected now in the trial were a top tried to introduce of the something like thirteen to fifteen different patents if they are products not not bottom products not the top products mirrors that of the earth but it was designed after there's many french presses that do have a metal frame but it's a complete encapsulation rather than the particular design of the shim board these things are not material but at the end of the day the channel or is one of our more expensive products we also introduce documentary evidence showing multiple different  piece of art and in fact it's been recognized by fate on's design a very rare occurrence treated some design as one of the one thousand best designs in the united states it's been recognized by the museum of modern art as a classic i you the st thing i want to my point out is the truth didn't tell you how they proved that there was no cost to me she didn't show she didn't talk about the proof of trial being related only to the materials she didn't tell you about the cost and they talk about because apple experience manufacturing challenges this is just one of them this shows you the breadth of what they claim as a trade dress just doesn't look anything like the family and yet they sent a cease and desist letter to the manufacturer and seller of this device so that just goes to show you know beauty of it it has to do with the functionality of that it represents the best functionality as you're going boating himself indicates that's what this case is about doesn't really do with how much advertising they spent they could have spent billions of dollars that doesn't go to functionality if they want to spend a lot of money to promote their products that's or right but it doesn't change the functionality of their device and that's what this case is about with respect the patents it would have been nice if we could have had our expert talk about the past but they talked about the  their expert on the past i was not able to cross or to direct my expert on the past because they were excluded i don't know how you undo that but that was baked into the cake this is got to go back for a new patent infringement case but there should have at least in some kind of a hearing on the claims construction and there wasn't this case should go back for a trial based on the path we just showed us the wo there well there's you know what there goes will be on the record i think what i'm saying is there can't be any trade dress if there's and the reason i say that is because there is represents the best functionality if someone wants to come up with a with a copy press that has all kinds of flamboyant stuff on it and say well you know this is certainly different than the rest maybe but there's not a record what's in the record here is a car of the press where they have been able to enable to prove disprove or prove non functionality the of is just a record there's nothing in the record for the cost up and you know what what really got to me was the computer product safety stuff that has to do with blundering alert you can't get any more functional than that and the leather