supply but in the meantime that was enough for those not for sale prior to the critical that was an offer for say a private critical day but not of the invention you wanted the invention did not exist as of that day and the record is absolutely black and white and in addition what was what bag was the note on the bottom of this request yes ed what's what the big with the chip look was she referring to if that was not the and i mean let me continue on with the testimony because after that question you know did mr solana present you with the bag exemplified by exhibit two yes question from your knowledge of what was occurring at that time undersized then the second row it says five and a half by eleven plus one quarter ahead or plus one half with lipgloss gerber chip is that the gerber chip referred to there the chip that's in exhibit two yes well isn't that enough in the light of the simplicity of the subject matter here is one can can conclude i think readily enough that one of ordinary skills on the part could easily have put to a little together i place a bag of chips you exhibit to an actual bed at some point after that i do receipt samplings when that date was i honestly could not tell you can we fairly say it's between two seventeen and march ninth it's unlikely you received a bag of the type shown in plaintiff's to the plastic bag and she says until they shipped gateway i could not have seen it so it seems to me that she is there for their lab writing on the exact timing at which she saw the very bag that my colleague the point yes you are and that's the bag of figure two of exhibit two and no time prior that i actually see any bag or whatever so the correct interpretation you would suggest then is that page ninety five she's admitting she did see something that mr reasons so for the sake of the discussion today let's assume that there's a question of fact about whether the prototype existed prior to the present day let's assume that the bag that was marked as exhibit five exhibit two was not shown in this clue saw but had a time under this record however when you take a fresh look at the record you still have to reach th second is that group before the group of days that the inventor had prepared rowlings or descriptions of the invention that were sufficiently detail to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention product at high speeds you tell me where that is a that goes to whether or not a prototype exists i'm talking simply about whether or not mr rasmussen made it unable to disclose your prior to the critical day and i'd like to focus on one of the sport's decisions robotic vision systems question about whether there was a commercial sale question was whether the invention was ready for past the event or said no i haven't written software yet needed to implement the play method the machinery to run a high speed to run the method at time speed of the first tells him what the method is don't you think that's something that needs to come out though as that's clearly a question of fact right you're telling us assume look i can give you instructions on is common sense on this record that these engineers just as is in the will bias case that a summary judgment is without the fact that the inventor there disclosed it was engineers and not about in the judge's opinion but i think if you look at the record or the notebook those conclusions from the record are escape remember summary justice is inappropriate only when there are genuine issues of imperial what it does not constitute a genuine issue but they didn't even set the machinery at the very paragraph you cite says they weren't able to set the machinery up to make it operate by market so it makes me question whether there was a fifteen suggest fourteen i'm sorry suggests another test and that is whether the evidence is sufficient to prove that the invention was right for packaging at the time of the sale it is clear that no aspect of the invention was developed after the critical again tomorrow i think we have sufficient evidence of the rector of this court concluded that there was no aspect of this invention developed after the c testimony that he made clear what what it was that was being ordered on the twelfth mr mr s and miss that the look the doctor question you know what was a poor patient for answer i believe it was for the bag that you referenced in your previous exhibit exhibit two now you will see it over flexes bridge that they admit that the bag shown as exhibit two is contract to sell thirty down to the same is under s p x evidence that it was confident that the product was ready to go there's another product on march third nine hundred ninety nine five days before the critical day over flex took delivery of forty two thousand pounds of these little plastic cups now as for why i said that the novelty of this invention was the inclusion of apply stick to people rather than a whole or an extended book in the head or why would they order forty two thousand pounds of these little two plastic little plastic chairs that they hand the liver from israel if they weren't certain that the invention was ready to go with those ch not the on movement has to come forward with specific facts to show that there is a genuine mission for trial and on this question if if there were facts that showed that there was a genuine issue about whether