because you already had a judgment on when construction a while ago and this went went back to look at so called new evidence court said that didn't relate to the claim because the newly discovered evidence that you came forward with the served as the basis for the judge taking a back related and part and parcel of those quaint construction opinion no no  original claim construction but you say there's a new claim construction correct that's correct where one one thing i did to where are the two plain constructions in the record in other words where is the original claim constructions that if you say it's i found a section at twenty eight twenty one sixty five ok under the heading of plane construction and i assume the given the date of that document that  that's the original plane construction that you say you can't you knowledge you can't challenge that right ok so we have so that's the one in twenty one sixty five to sixty six and then now where is the one that you say forty eight of the attachment to your brief yes that would be to be in they now says that means maneuvering means placing the tip in position for correlation there's nothing that says anything about pushing whether the handle can be used to push the two is completely irrelevant is not what i'm typing tell me again to the district court acted reasonably and did not abuse his discretion and limiting the scope of briefing to the new evidence in which the court allied grandly from the judgment reopen the case to the court come up with  departure from what we see twenty one sixty five hundred twenty one sixty six i think we're agreed those are the operative pages for parts of the record why do you say again has no departure from twenty one there's nothing else further in plain construction you're saying this is consistent with what we have at twenty one sixty six where there a number of references to maneuvering the two within the and the scope that's correct because in the earlier decision  proper place to provide justification for sanction i don't think it was an abuse of discretion for the court to do that i think there might have been other ways that it could have been dealt with but i think candidate clear notice of the reasoning for  disregarding the rules in the court wanted to send a clear message that that was not acceptable conduct before the court is applied mostly in a backward direction during withdrawal of the unit and then the next sentence states interior application during the advancement of the and the scope is certainly possible there is nothing in that sentence or in the entire article but the first t record and that is simply not the basis for the court's decision of maneuvering meaning to move into or out of a position or condition that is incorrect is overly broad simply takes a dictionary definition and fails to consider the kind of text of the claimed invention as shown might have been employed but in an opposition as it was abuse of discretion and the reason was that it was raised by everybody a footnote in their opposition and then at the court noted it was raised in a footnote in the judge's opinion it's not true that  evidence so called new evidence and found that it didn't matter so with the court was a little short tempered tempered perhaps is that understandable i would say no and the reason i would say punished for for baseball all we were trying to do was raise the issue for one thing i would like to mention very quickly in the final seconds that mr weiner said something very interesting about the original claim construction of the court at age twenty one sixty five sixty six he said that the court didn't need to go into more detail at that time on the evidence before and that's exactly the position that we're taking the appellant is not saying the court needs to do something it's done before we're just saying there should have been additional clarification on