city i mean i don't mind if you want to sit there it's going to confuse me because i have my mindset who says what when but no you don't have to move  structure and then about the food you can i can i just ask a kind of deliberate every question let's assume for a moment that we were to agree with the commission's construction that there's a little confusion for me in these cases because there's some overlap so with regard to the invalidity questions that are presented in this appeal i guess there's no overlap with the earlier case because they were dealing with certain claims on the five fifty but here clarify for me the other case we were clearly talking about an obviousness combination of tucker and that what are we talking about here with respect to invalid here we talk about anticipation under tupper are we to also talking about it  it's clearly being processed and it's being processed so it can be fed to a device that will display graphically and that shows a short or echo that is processing yes it's an electrical signal that is coming back from the i mean isn't that i'm sorry isn't the claim construction depend on whether it requires an identical beam pattern not your honor in our view the impact is the second step of the infringement analysis that the key language doesn't have to have the same being patterns  but i've hardly this is a very convoluted claim construction argument presented i mean we've got like seven different alternative constructions that have been used along the way and then when we get down to the entire construction the entire phrase it seems like we're fairly analyzing the word single versus others so it's very difficult to follow up and we start talking about all these different constructs and very doesn't disclose the process or some broadly defined tother does not contain expressed disclosures of the require doesn't have to be expressed or why they have to use the word processor it's has to be expressed because that's the argument that i mean presented in never signals and tucker as mr ridge has acknowledged isn't the right type of system it's a phase or a system there was no commission finding that it was or was not the parties agree that it is tucker cannot possibly be part of these claims anymore they arrays are excluded and that's no surprise the parties agreed all that face rays were excluded and to the point made earlier that necessarily excludes tucker if it's a face racist and there were  transducer element can be made from a single piece origami made from multiple pieces if it's for multiple pieces they act as a combined unit that simultaneously and interface are not of history there's a single channel going those are different systems the commission got the quaker struction correct here and it ought to be a me one question that's been going back and forth and i'm sure it's just me and i don't understand it if we adopt the if we affirm the minister the commission's claim construction which excludes based arrays and you say that tucker is all about  absolutely one hundred percent right and we could have a debate about whether it is or isn't a face the right i have it certainly has the kind of wiring that goes into effect right but i is that the skilled person reading that language in the prosecution history would say i think i can take multiple components multiple elements i just need to watch them together or in fact you would want them in parallel to make case is submitted t