in the great grief if you look at  sets with number and the same numbers that you call sets are applied to groups and the single bar still there by at least giving a pretty good indication that you're presenting and brewing principally in gray right and except for the defendant's expert and now he seems to be talking about anything in the record to make the argument at trial that you're making the independents material is forced i don't think you have arguments that were made to the jury in your openings or closing specific effect because i don't think that was the focus of the opening or closing argument but i believe you do have everything that he expert that me to have some real weaknesses because in the first place you have testimony of both boys and luke and then you've got a ninety six test spec document and then you've got the videos and then you've got the talked about in the video but but all of these other things we talked about the ninety six december document the test spec has a seat selection a mouse over as part of the discussion right so that's where the marsh nine hundred ninety seven assume in that six week period time the change they made was removing the beach or that they couldn't get work i just want to take it step in and talk about the jury instruction issue because if it work doesn't jame on the corroboration issue we're still entitle to have trial a question is were there overwhelming evidence that the videos were made public and the answer is not a after instruction that allowed the jury to find anticipation based on secret prior art they argued to the jury in their closing argument which is quoted at length that they could find anticipation based on the videos that the jury remember all that evidence that the videos were secret that's fine that's ok you can still invalidate a patent based on this ar drew the system from memory fifteen years later before he was shown any of the refreshing documents so getting his memory hasn't faded he's not merely showing up there is plenty of documentary evidence the vibrate a little bit here the tests themselves the usability studies and videotapes those were never released the videotapes were never really set right they are evidence to corroborate the public release of the product we know that product was sold t we put forward to show that it was in fact released documentary evidence now let's go through it and he walks through documentary evidence that's not a closing argument it's trying to sneak a private use to pay as an argument this focus on the very question that raises  with what is the jury supposed to determine what is said is a goal but a normal dictionary i think it has to go by its own plain meaning according to its records instruction and they have a challenge that instruction which they are but the district court said said he didn't want  the expedient system and the only question now want to call it was not really argue in the district court at all i pleased but on appeal their question is their argument is well that doesn't count as a set of available seats because you've chosen them one by one even though as we've been consistent from when we file the suit as to what's happened to see it doesn't apply to airline apps all of which on the expedia map supposedly to airline maps today are just mousing over a single seat and getting information about that  and such a way that would constitute a fifty three when i contacted anticipation your honor but there was also a full infringement cases that were presented against the ticket companies in which the maps that are shown in the brief were sung to the jury and it was explaining what type of feet means in the context of the time this strikes me is a classic case of something which was really not an issue in the trial at all commanding a great deal of appellate attention do you think that's a fair way to proceed your honor i think it was a big issue in the trial and it was a big issue post trial you look back at the jam operates this was a pope is the same way it's year the fact that it only in the post trial you're looking for something to question what the result was before that result if it were not great debate there was this was not the focus was there is a defendant that was