Judge asked questions about "varying together" mainly to the defendants, and it was clear that he was highly unlikely to accept their definition.  He would have liked to get more specificity from Mr. Cook as to what definition the plaintiffs would prefer, but Mr. Cook simply stated that he was unable to provide such "at this time".  That leads me to believe that Mr. Cook may attempt to submit a supplemental memorandum after he has had a chance to give the issue further thought, but as always, we shall see.  The same is true for the "total top area" question, which Mr. Cook was unable to further explain to the Judge's satisfaction in the courtroom.

As to "processing frequency", the Judge appeared to me to be highly critical of the defendants' position.  My notes specifically reflect that he told the defense attorney who was arguing the point that the defendant's defintion "isn't helpful", "doesn't solve the problem", and in general, that their suggested interpretation simply created more undefined terms.