the claim construction which is wrong as a matter of law the seven one that serves two different functions one of those function is the is the accumulation of voltage for ignition and a different separate function is to power on board to use a phrase in specification switch on another component other furnace that is necessary for the furnace to start there is no evidence in this record of any prior art with declaration that there are necessary things that must happen in order to start a furnace and ignition is the last of those steps you must have  the function of the inducer motor mounts figure one shows the inducer relay and that embodiment you must have the integrity of the flame sensing circuit confirmed so that you will know if there is just gas passing through the building or flame you must have the gas valve turned down and finally you must have an arc or spark to ignite the fly do you think that if you accused  the preferred in body image where it is the inducer motor that is actually weighted in order to start the furnace in addition to the function of ignition when the claim is construed to properly in our view to be limited to a coil that serves these two functions then we look to whether there is any evidence in the record  serving those two functions i submit there is none consequently this court should determine i submit that as a matter of law honeywood the not curious burden that seven one one fact is invalid as a consequence there's no reason to re man and the result that we request is a declaration of the proper claim construction and given the absence of any evidence of the coil operation due to the construction that they gave it's a consequence of their construction it's not a construction that was argued before the board at the time it's not a construction that honeywell advanced or that i would say that we advanced but it is a consequence of their construction and i might say they are on my put it this way they construe the claim so broad that under these claims of this patent the only function of the coil is ignition or they construe the saying the same thing and set a different way that is true the claims so broadly that everything boiled down to ignition so when you look at the language of the cla to the igniter function is the reference to the induce reading is that right everything else is necessary to make the neither igniter function operate as claimed wires exactly so control that uses a core al twelve to in this environment induce the inducer motor inducer relay that's that's there and then this invention takes that same core oil and applies it for the accumulation of voltage for ignition not only does it use a single component for two purposes one it benefit then the patter specification as you at the board is only directed to the ignition function and nothing else yes expert testimony is only directed to the ignition function and nothing else so when we were actually hearing agree then took that definition of actuator and applied it to the verb to actually then they took the definition of actuator which is an electrical energy that causes a mechanical action some physical movement and then they apply that definition in a way that's nonsensical to the flame because they apply that to the discharge of the accumulated voltage they apply the definition of actuator to which requires a physical output of mechanical motion by their own definition they applied it to the discharge of the energy itself to which the definition that's a longer winded way of saying what the board did with the terms to the term actual weight or for construing the verb to actually weigh and i frankly don't think all the dots ever line up on that thank you your honor may please the court as is clear from the briefing and the arguments of i c m as counsel here today this case boils down to the preamble of claim one of the patent issue what extent it's limiting and what it means i'd like to address two issues in response to i c m's arguments one in this the preamble is partially limiting based on the rationale that the board put forth in its final decision the court need go no further to actually the furnace is not a limitation of the claim under the board's rationale the second thing i want to address is i see him as tortured construction of the preamble to actually the furnace does not make appendix and in the middle of the page there in response or considering honeywell's arguments regarding the preamble and to what extent it was limiting the board stated and i quote as petition correctly notes two terms in the preamble provide an assumed basis coil and igniter neither party has provided persuasive argument regarding any other reason why we should consider the preamble now to actuate the furnace and that makes sense i c m hasn't challenge that finding by the board here today the issues that it's presented to this court take no issue with the board's finding along those lines with respect to the preamble and it can and challenge it here today the board's conclusion are supported by the general principles that this quarter flies in the context of determining whether preamble is limiting or not generally as this court has said multiple times of preamble dalam and there are exceptions to that one is where provides in a seating basis the board decided that only to those two structural aspects for the furnace doesn't decide an essential step or structure we're talking about an apparatus claiming you're not a method claim and the only structural aspects that are not necessary and needed from the bring in bill are those two structural another which wasn't what you just said if i understand you was that well the reason that this language about actuating doesn't contribute anything is because ignition is actually what if if that's not the meaning of actuate in the context of this claim then that argument is simply both redundant and according to your opposing counsel wrong that's correct but you need to consider that not just to actually but to actually thought furnace the full context of that phrase and whether to actually furnace includes ignition or excludes ignition has i c on the council proposal i see as councils argument is that in the context of this preamble it's clear that ignition about here if we think about a venn diagram and the ultimate goal is to actuate the furnace there's a number of things as your honor recognize that goes into actuating the furnace ignition making sure there's a gas in this in the abstract that the that would include ignition but why in the context of this preamble language in this preamble is that still true which is to say that actuation why in other words to use your opposing counsel is argument why isn't the referenced actua ting redundant if you're right that it refers to it because it's merely describing what it is though to those if you will components that i described the igniter and the coil are doing in the system the whole claim is directed towards what's to follow that's correct ok let me ask you one of the question then on the same topic what do you make of the fact that for example in figure limb we have the circuit which is necessary to perform the function of claimed one but we also have the issue related which presumably is not necessary to perform the the precise ignition function of that of that claim what's the inducer really doing in that figure if it is the performance of the functions of the inducer really are not part of the plan it's certainly well known that you can use an existing coil in a system like they're showing here for some other purpose that was before examiner but that's a separate issue up current from the quite right fair point and its opening closing the contacts in order to actually i took up the opening closing the contact was coming from microprocessor just below the inducer with the squared off isn't it the microprocessors cult causing the pulsating current that's causing the break and in the circuit that causes the pulses right correct that open thing close up an answer really isn't doing that that's right so what's new we should really part of the motor that is available to perform other functions correct that's correct ok so it suggests that other functions are contemplated to be performed by figure one that's true that that's true but it doesn't you refer to a particular type call that it was being used for multiple purposes in the context of any other claim there's no specificity along those lines and thus it requires a broader interpretation the board was mindful of that d to include more explicitly functions performed by the use of quotes or they could have and i think what's what's even more telling is the fact that if this is really the genius of the invention why is it relegated to the preamble there's nothing in the body of the claims that goes towards this so called genius or so called novelty and it wasn't contested during prosecution in the in the face of prior art that was presented by the examiner i c m didn't talk about this so called genius to get around the prior in fact amended the claims the switching means arrangement so that it was automatically just charge based on a pre determined voltage threshold did the examiner in the original prosecution have careers it did not that it had a built in reference to build a reference which talks explicitly about using a coil a fuel injector coil to not only control the fuel injector but also the ignition circuit so just turning back to the preamble being partially limiting that's what the board's pressure now leads to the conclusion that the the preambles only partially limiting and that's consistent with this court precedent in a number of cases including tom tom which we cite in our brief page thirty five as well as loc tite which is cited in tom tom both of those cases stand for the proposition that you can have a partially limiting preamble and in those cases the court walk through the exact same rationale that the board did here finding structural aspects to be limiting in the preamble and functional descriptions of those structural aspects not limiting that's dispositive of all the issues on appeal here the court need not go further the board need not go further and the board's decision can be affirmed on that ground the other point i'd like to mention is i c m raises these benefits saying that the benefits are being read out and not considered in the context of this was structured but if i can point the court thirty eight this is the patent again in column one starting at line nineteen what this pattern is talking about is the concern presented in a low voltage environment trying to get enough voltage in order to generate a stat there's no connection between the two purpose coil and those benefits so even if we consider the i c as construction of two actually the for the furnace doesn't hold water it's not substantiated by the evidence and the board got it right and should be affirmed but even if we go beyond that power at the flame sensor get what is undisputed is that coil in courier the voltage from that oil is being used for two purposes it's causing ignition in the igniter circuit as well as powering i understood you to be saying that the douche relay was responsible for the switching colony off that causes the flyback voltage by virtue of disruption voltage going through the start with another answer or further answer to an earlier question in terms of the specification that column one lines fifty seven to sixty one it is another object to provide a niche and ignition circuit that employ the fact that the use of the coil for one purpose of ignition has the various benefits detailed in the specification does not deny the separate fact that the claim requires  that we've just heard regarding the preamble not being limited to him because a new art if it was not before the board the claim destruction of the board was not argued before the board all of the argument to fund the argument before the board was whether there was sufficient evidence in the record to support to where the proof for the product is to conclude that the prior art disclosed the true for it to function c disputed that the coil of courier powers the flame sensing circuit it certainly is and there is no evidence of honeywell fest supports that position which was just on the question of the preamble and the phrase it were construing and secondly when you go to the specification and figure one yet that is the defining aspect of the invention to take this existing component that is used in one environment for inducing the inducer motor taking that existing component keeping that function that purpose and using it for a second one of ignition there's a defining aspect of the