if this is history a suggestion might ask could it be designated because it has considerable relevance i think for the valuable time of spending here today to assess the issues of appeal i have reference to that this was one of the good things that happened to me indicates that the trial court has terminated permit injunction that was the subject was to be the subject  at offices filed their submissions they are waiting for a conforming brief from the patent owner of what mr warner apparently told the t expects some success in that process at some stage there are twenty or more new planes which are have spawned from the presently  was grossly overbroad so much so that it brought into play all of the prior art in the prosecution history as well as the soon to become noted new zealand proceedings that revoked the mirror image of the us patent it is so broad that it will if you will read all of the prior art which has to do with the extrusion of p v c products that are made to look like wood then i it is there's little chance that if this trial court sticks with its claim definition i will ever escape the scope of the single play of the eight one patent as long as something that comes from it still has if my second argument which i think is noted for civility argument is not convincing and the case returns to trial court because there is a reexamination of the eighty one patent that yields something for h claim construction can stand scrutiny i think it is erroneous i've given you my reasons why it turns out that if you accept the crowd court's claim construction in the inherent see in pushing p v c through a di as demonstrated prior art is that you will not have a perfectly smooth piece no matter whether the guy was designed for that effect or not you will only get the loan to do it will slots it tended by the patty if you deliberately form them so as to relieve structure allow the material to bend laterally and provide a base for glue will have not fully expert gaited on the subject but i do know that the court has addressed and is again going to address what the attention see exercises all about so i've done my best to bring my argument forward in this having been prevented from arguing about the significance of the revocation proceeding to new zealand until the jury trial was over finally the court recognized that that was  a careful reading your honor of the examination i made of mr abramson that the declaration he gave was false and misleading and that's the extra that's the extra indication of attention to sieverts court was talked about in para whether they're in norway sweden or do i have stakes in his recollections about things that he did not personally experience his trial counsel to do much more so but on that question the district court   but the witness him self says on inquiry and who would answer to him more than his patent counsel there were no written records of any kind current deliberations about what should be done with the  icons you a part of the proceedings or the camera records he couldn't support it what i expected to find if i went looking for it he could remember the lawyers names who presumably put together the advice which he told the trial her personally in paragraphs nineteen twenty and twenty one of his declaration that he took and relied on he did no such thing that was false and really misleading and he finally tells me that that that declaration as extensive as it that there's more here than they deliberately withholding of a highly material reference which the court finally gives me at the trial level from the patent office where it would have done the most good and is today frankly doing the most good in terms of the reexamination so i'm trying to if you will take advantage of this further definition of what it takes to prove intent when i realized my burden is high but i what i wanted to waive my award now i didn't think that it would be prudent to do so so i came down here so i could hear what mister wilson had to say in responding tying it with if the situation warranted it i've not heard anything on his oral argument which i have not previously addressed in my response brief their private rely on that what i would like to say is the two problems that proceed with this break at this appeal is much like the case down below was very scattershot the appellant here is appealing no less than eight workers not counting the merged rulings from the lower court  disclosure considered by the us right if that's the route so that was at least one of the reasons that mr abramson gave for non disclosure to the patent office that can't be right i mean i don't i mean so he's saying i did you know it's highly material and i didn't give it to the patent office because i was told presumably by my lawyers that since the claims were a law the issu to international s's patent counsel the fee was paid in january and then the patent was issued ok i believe it may so it's that we're concerned with let him just wouldn't look at it anyway it's like patents but if they know too late you're going to get your patent no matter what you tell us because you've already gone through these other earlier steps and honestly respond your honor that i don't know and i w to what i was talking about earlier i believe that the district was releasing should be affirmed per curiam because the appellant you have not identified anything that the court did wrong soon for the moment that the legal advice with respect to what could be submitted to the patent office was correct at the time it was given the fact remains that  everson testifying in front of him that it he had credibility let me ask you i think when mr wilson was podium he was asked the question well why didn't you who was suggested he could come forward with evidence construction would reach a longitudinal study us which were minuscule as in at the molecular level sides well let them hear your response of you getting ahead i want to first an answer to whether you think that claim construction would apply to slots no matter what their size including slots of slots in their it enhanced is the ability of something to bend to the point where it doesn't require nails and can be secured with glue yet rigid enough to retain or their shape that's the beauty of the launch to  course if it were if that were slots of the molecular size the bending would not be materially different the capacity to bend would not be materially different from a surface that had no e device would not be any more bendable any material or any more bendable than one that had no slots correct in correct it would still be more bendable because i've just  stage but my explanation as you would think would find it the record if you were grading my performance was a sincere attempt to draw attention to the fact that none of us could out run if you will asserting was itself a fraud on the court because it was delivered verby to see it two months prior to his trial i didn't get a chance to question him about it until after the jury trial so the judge's mind was if you will agree with a false and misleading declaration look at some of the other material that he gave every excuse one could think of under the the result of being tutored to sign the declaration he signed none of that discussion about the change in the design of the product about not responding in new zealand fay file the counter statement in new zealand they tried to tell the court in florida they didn't they thought it was so worthless and the judge actually bought that or there was so no it was for them to proceed in a market that they did you know what exploit that they gave up on the revocation proceeding good did no such thing the record shows that they court obviously i have mine as i said before praxair case and some others say it isn't enough for me to rest on the face of the declaration and the material we are i've got to go a little further well i think i considerably further in my remarks and i simply wish to draw your attention to mr abramson was the perfect fall guy to make the excuses that nobody was going to support not to purge on your lawyer not the swedish lawyer whoever they are and there was no written record that could be fetched up even when the declaration was being prepared to support it not the usual circumstance with regard to the late disclosure in my experience because most practitioners experience if you have a reference that sound to late as to whether a the you have an obligation a continuing obligation until issuance to present that material to the patent office or b if the patent office won't look at it even if you do present it to them  because essentially what we have here is that the final agency decision there was no instructions given by the agency director and what course mr jones could take as pointed out of my appendix document number trying to advise mr jones essentially what course he had it was put to me to essentially take a look at what the case law was and i found to