the fact that needs to be changed doesn't teach away from it she does except in this instance when the wiring is critical to the performance of the underlying referent as it is here and the substitution of that wiring were rendered inoperable which is another reason operate it up to sixty two and a half megahertz in the ten before he stated attendees the wiring of the time was rated only up to sixteen megahertz so there were there was there was a lot more than just changing the network interface card that's critical  our technical advisor in the court also made their case for legal errors one by judging the credibility of the witnesses and by resolving factual disputes against crime or even going so far as to fill in missing evidence connected component must be shielded and that's critical to the performance of the green field because the signal to operate requires the shielding so that it doesn't violate the f c c re missions requirements which were also a stated  only rated sixteen and a half have such a sixteen megahertz another problem is that the green book wirings allowed cannot form associated curves which are required by claims seventeen actually there including fourteen in the construction and associated currents of is a curve that only is formed through the piece of equipment in this way you can relate the flow of the current through the associated curve to the physical connection of the use of equipment and it always has to look for it whether or not it's present so the fact is it could appear a quick nod in agreement you could never then relate the flow of current to physical connection because of the possibility that this loop back connection and would occur creating a second occurren supposes physical connection and therefore in an opposite way to ten base he where he has that quicken account for part of the r j forty five which need not be physically connected so the only way to determine whether there is a physical connection is to cable player where a physical defend actually is an unplugged the piece of equipment will do different that they both cause the same result i think i disagree in the sense that  is a physical disconnection so that this system isn't capable of detecting a broken wire it can't operate if there's a broken wire because you've eliminated the possibility that checking for a physical disconnection what's the difference i mean if if book it will detect a broken wire and the disconnection of the device will detect both of those either one of those running i think in the hypothetical case should give you are a simple wouldn't it would give it an indication that's correct but the indication the problem is the green book doesn't teach through the concentrator to the computer and then back again and they simply ask whether or not there is some sort of break in that circuit and if there's a break then you have a detection that goes off for nothing so they do the exact same thing there's no difference between the two now my friends claim is well why our network of the green book network has a rap back there now and that makes it somehow different and we think that's problematic for two reasons one exactly the same thing and once if you don't have the rat pack it's on women that the two networks are the two circuits functioning exactly the same way they do exactly the same thing now when you have a round back the only difference is that this green book network has a more sophisticated variant that has three states of operation that can detect whether or not everything is working properly that is if there are no bright good wires no improperly connected wires and the computer is connected or it the fact that it's more sophisticated doesn't at all mean of course that there's not an anticipation there is and so we think that the claim fourteen argument is pretty much foreclosed by cisco and the wrap back news as well as findings twenty nine and thirty three which make it absolutely clear that this works with respect to disconnection but that's what this network finds disconnections just as the two sixty patent does if there are no other court found and what the expert advisor found out is that ten base t yron which is the only difference between claim seventeen fourteen claim seventeen years just one sentence more times from claim fourteen and simply says claim fourteen plus these of ten days to wire and with the district court in the special master in the expert advisor all found is that ten days to wiring was a commonly used form of wiring and that that isn't at all relevant to the underlying invention here which is the cable detect circuit you can use as all of these different decision makers said anyway it doesn't matter the fact it's heavy to wire it would be used as is it as that is the expert advisor put in i think paragraph fifty three something that because it's commonly used would lead to motivate would be motivating lots of people to use ten base t weren't they very commonly used form of are indeed their own patent and to the two sixty pound even acknowledges that ten base t wiring is commonly used and so swapping out one form of wiring for another doesn't is something that as the district court in the expert advisor found was an entirely reasonable thing to do and indeed people would have been motivated to do it now my friend stood here and said well no this is different at c c shielding requirements in the life now there is no evidence whatsoever in the record that f c c shielding history about what the green book is it's not just about this cable the techs are seeing much bigger solution to the problem of using copper wiring in place of fiber optic cables because they're cheaper in already existing buildings and he's absolutely right with respect to the wires that run through buildings on the whole they need to be shielded but with respect to the cable the tech circuit there's no evidence that he's provided that there's f c c requirements or anything else that says that ten base t wiring will interfere with the performance of the cable detect circuit you can use any form of wiring and if there's any doubt our breather pages forty to forty one we're proud of that evidence and i a cable detect circuit and it worked and so for purposes of summary judgment we think there is no genuine issue of material fact no one on that point your friend started by making kind of a global critique trigger the automatic sensing in the answer that may go over ultimately gives under cross examination and admittedly he was trying to dance around the question but he ultimately says yes second he admits that the green book functions with continuous current that's a page in a joint appendix six seventy six and he says that the two sixty patent does the exact same thing that the green book with respect to detecting broken wires and that's of pages six forty nine and sixty the rat eating the cable and and all of that and once you take those three things i don't think that there's anything left to be sure they go over did talk about how the assumption behind the green book patent is that w be broken and that this isn't that all these questions about rats and so on violating the sumption of the patent but that is you can't patent an assumption i understand that their patent has a different assumption that wires won't be broken that you could apply that assumption just as much to the server to the green book circuit and you would get the same result ultimately the two networks do exactly the same thing and we don't think that there is any genuine issue of material fact and just most as you said this case has been going on along comes this technology is twenty years old and this litigation in one form or another has been going on for over a decade and we do think it's about time to stop  s because every decision maker that's looked at it that is the special master the expert advisor the district court and indeed the district court and cisco have all concluded that there's nothing here if there are no other questions cable tech circuit to work for now we didn't present evidence that it doesn't work from an overall standpoint if you substitute time wasting words and agree but we also sort of show how the cables affect circuit what i'm likely to work as a result of that substitution had to maintain the shield in the loop integrity the way that they did that is they knew they were physically connected and then they put a scheme on to look for broken wires and that's why the indications zero volt is broken wires and the only reason they can be indicative  will give an indication that's correct however there's a problem with that because the these these things are set up in big buildings in their rooms and there's somebody sitting in the indication from the from the negative point the operator sitting in that room is going to think that a broken wire because that is the the constraints from the wiring upon which the detection schemes are built so