therefore he clearly should have known but i think that would have to be assumed it was not stated what was stated was the contra is a he was not a part of so effective and as we know from recent decision from this board that the objective problem is a fresh the seventy seven fifty six it comes from inventor testimony in which he testified that that by dynamic conductors it is obvious that it means measured using a nation for any given comes talk about for forty years a patent prosecution but what they do is they go beyond this intrinsic evidence and they look to a dictionary definition for a city they apply it saying that well since  in single signal in the context of this particular work that's been developed in twelve or more back i think our construction is the right thing and when you apply the construction of either or any one of those free alternative constructions to the excuse products there's not infringement and even if you apply their construction the health of the over delta i adult child adult will be there's no infringement either i get back to your point when we're looking at the universe of the issues here are rising at will from infringement our plane construction is married to the intrinsic pressure we don't step outside of it except for the example i give is that your testimony that i was a trial lawyer a runner but when i read this record something went wrong these are close questions at worst and i think when the white house want to but at the end of the day it's not the stuff of role for infringement this is not objective obviously have more experience than are in this but highly unusual circumstance where you had the pioneering adventures the experts in the field says there is this is who was involved here the only prior art cited against it was their own are things they wrote and not only wrote but used to market and develop products they were intimately familiar with that for one sixth you had the patent office who examined for one fix it was before it and signed off on as not being wasn't you have the presumption we really had we had not  again i don't think that was close and i think that the forensics was a is a subset of the seven five six four one six came up with the idea that that we don't need a fully charged battery we can compensate by just knowing it's voltage and we think that's a universal property of the battery that it turns out that's wrong in the seven five six and built on that and recognize that no in fact it depends on the type of battery what was the testimony of three soon found their investigation presented at all in fact we took a deposition  that i think they say things that they understand or claim to understand that dynamic conductance is as something that is different than what they do and these are the two different two measurements that i think w that their product before applies the current pulse is drawing no current so by definition whatever current they draw during their pollster in the basement is the change by definition there's no reason to subtract zero in the district cour that he adopted and set forth both prongs seagate objective and subjective and support for those and he adopted those and then he's moving on to whether he's going to mccance at that point he said he did to consider the subject  think is correct given the foundational finding of willfulness is all that is really necessary to support the enhancement so i think he did consider the subject a problem with that footnote addresses a different aspect of the case seven by six patents and thoroughly studied both so they were aware priests who of the seven five six pack had studied it carefully had knowledge of their own products they had knowledge of the trunks patents they had no knowledge of products that use those patents and they also were aware they were being accused of infringement so free suits are had everything they need to know to to be on notice and be concerned about their actions and they chose to ignore that and and it's an extensive one and they made a determination that what they're doing is ac conductance testing and what they're doing is a d c or l p r conductance testing that's and when they sued they didn't sue under seven fifty six billion patent sued they sued on the four sixteen the same fifty six was introducing this into this case at the post filing of the original complaint with respect to champ ones testimony at trial was that that's not a that's a wrong disclosure and nobody should know one of ordinary skill in the art would rely on that wrong disclosure because he's the only one six in the correction circuitry is what chance of disclosing the force he saw those secondary considerations i don't believe come into effect at all they they had a ninety five percent accuracy rate they bumped it up by one percent using the technology dispose of the