notional way for concept and isn't that inconsistent with what you are and below in other words couldn't a single die if it was on some kind of a substrate be a way for under your current theory a get into such clear  tax position isn't that a way it would be if it could be a single die and we didn't reduce the of the notional to the notional wafer concept believe soit so i'm clear with the question the issue was at trial there were  particular a particular substrate that has one by me that could be a way for sure that it was clear that di and we for are not interchangeable if not exactly the same thing right the issue is that when you have when you go through this clarification during the construction process where do you think you know under the your local rolls it's very drawn out you never once proposed a construction that asked the top or to instruct the jury that has to be a separate physical piece which is what you're clarification that a way for is not indict it is in essence it is a physical substrate there is nothing here which says you can go back and take whatever that way for is and then say having to find it and now we're going to call it for that's exactly claim construction that you filed i don't know where this would have been your first opportunity to respond to the plaintiff's proposed claim construction because the initial pings were simultaneous to three simultaneous is that right this is your first opportunity to get it correct and still on page ten when you tell me what at the top of that request for the transcript yesterday there it was the issue of the any part thereof why it was to treat a party with a passageway for this was in the transcript on page fifty nine of lines nine fourteen was expressed in oregon let me understand two things first of all in the district issue the reason we responded to it in a footnote is that it probably it i'm not understanding how the lever determination has to be made by the district court we don't reach out and make weeper determinations when the district court has considered decided the issue you know if if it's been decided it's there and it was just signed i mean that's the basis for the decision here  inspection you'd have to have somebody say well it was obvious to do that i think in the fall wrapper challenge self there was rejection of the shouting over the right and so the patent office from that those two paths are in the same field and they would be saying under the for example the interactive gift express case it says that if at the court below you don't raise that be an issue for you propose a change and in the scope of the claim limitation on appeal but you didn't raise that change to confuse so i thought that the district court had addressed this very issue and rejected the notion that it had to be separate in the in specifically found that it was appropriate to say that you could have separate wafers in on the way hold on the one thing i want to make sure of is when it says dyson's talking about di wait for right like it's the dolly doesn't exist separate from the wait for you can cut away for some small so that you only have a di it's like at the is the cheese that way first the crust on the pizza you know i mean you've still got wafer underneath the dial you still have to wait for it's not so when you put it on the visual inspection device it's not just a di it's a guy sitting on top a tiny little piece away or right different parts of it that's how you get at that big cross section of dye used to create them out and it talks about even uses few is to die to create and i'll preferably ten or twenty in the more the merrier but you only need two and we actually read the that claim and that had expressly read on the part of body and i guess my point is not every single claim in a patent or family patents has to cover every single embodiment of it but this issue is specific to the treating issue and that is at issue in the issues though goes to be more related to the algorithm of how do you come up with the spec sheet it doesn't go into the strobing in continuous motion it's really a pretty pretty different animal right understanding how this description of the specification says you can take some some dice from this part of the wavering some guys from another part of the way for that it's all consistent i don't know about any one of them all by themselves whether it's enough to carry the day but the preamble together with the embodiment that you point out that you can look at various portions of the way for and then the inspection then turns to to looking at numerous wafers to compare it to that reggie you you can you look at the whole point of this the is once you true to there are more than one discrete physical substrate what should happen and they're arguing that that's a personal but i think that you argue that there's a significant amount of evidence that might demonstrate that falcon device still performs and two acres well that's that's really not the issue at least for the system quickly and one has got the visual inspection device either way if we were to modify the claim construction that wouldn't affect the evidence or there's a development process that started well after this orders are seen they haven't didn't deal with any of that in their reply so we believe it is a directly to the news how to use the different terms in different places when they wanted to and i want to point out that in the in the specification patent it just says seventy four eighty three it makes clear that the training inspection process is the same they talk about that there's an alignment process that goes on and they say the same alignment process is used for training inspection so i don't see any basis that if there is no there claims directed to training away from his or inspecting wafers those are different than but what i wanted to point out is it's a system for inspecting the substrate this just goes back to this issue about talk about something that physical and something that's physically discreet i think place that a semiconductor material is a substrate and i think is rel was put in is that there are instances that where certain data is updated over the course of operation of a machine but the claim limitation i think this is a problem i want to highlight briefly so there is a bit of a disconnect as they talk about different things here this is all well the claim says visually importing something there is only one way for that is visually in put it there is no testimony below that the supplemental data may come in over time on these these picks sell values there is no visual  the other point i wanted to make in the time that i have have left is that one of the things that i think there's just a big disconnect i know there was testimony at trial that the things that really enable this alleged invention to work were things started sobbing make the if the effective inspection and the ability to do second optical in a particular way exactly what they claim describe which is taking away their patent way for and using strobing to do some form of inspection what they said was that's a sorry what the organs of the jury to make it really work is not what they claim that