which will slide position either which also has and also to align our schools to open the container for slide the gates away slide this tractor plates away so the container sits because of the molten metal invention was to provide slide gates which have guide means which independent claims are restarted as rollers and tracks of the rollers on the slider or on the mountain means it was very clear that the melting clause reciting guide means and a track and it claim is originally filed originally present examiner required that the guide track or the guide means would be either on the slide or the number were on the house orientation with claim one you could just seamlessly and smoothly rely on claim to fifteen which has the actual orientation of the defense products in that respect yes sure clay fifteen also opposite that and then the guide element on the second opposite and for every trick riding on the guide tracks on the housing portion so you have the spring elements have one insecurity slightly and that would be different from that used device it's also different from the environment shown figure one so we would have a quick last argument on that part it doesn't saying where the spring elements are are attached to i'm sorry that was quite a while ago through this analysis there was the first and secured to the slider unit in the second and opposite the first and that's required on the mounting components and the guide element where the rollers are on the second end for writing on to respect the one of the guy tracks right which are on the housing but the second end has to be secured to the slider though and we read that as being d with this specific location i view the guy tracks of the guy the elements that were specifically reciting that that narrowing amendment which when it was meant narrowing was made for the purpose of avoiding the prior art think the file wrapper the remarks made to the patent office and the patent office office actually make it clear that the prior art cited required the guy tracks of the guide elements to be either on the side or on the housing portion either way the other alternative was within  but it was also mended to require that the many components had to be units on each side so that before missing many components having these rollers and guy tracks and springs to get the plates tightly together it was this arrangement of two personified on the spiral unit which gave the pressure to have the tight seal that would be necessary between the two refractory plate to stop molten metal from leaking that's what the patent was the bath was just not have the frame which had been required previously to keep this pressure impact but instead we're going to use for individual mounting components based on opposite to want each side spaced so that we c have this equal out of all pressure or way around the place and that's what the remark said the remarks of very clear that the invention was having the guide tracks of the guide elements on either the slider or the housing either one was part of the invention that's the notice that was given to the public or either one of the invention then they come right back and says i explained in the specification the arrangement of the matting components the respect so has to have to want each side below said that the claims were narrowed to exclude the equivalent in order to patent billing that's wrong that was not the purpose of this narrowing amendment to put the guy tracks on it's like that was not to get past the building firm under these circumstances the narrowing of the claim is clear it is it was narrowed during prosecution there's no argument that at this court to the contrary so the question then becomes is that their ruling related to pat ability and we look to the patent applicants homewards the public record which confirms that the narrowing amendment was for patentability purposes and if you look to the  configuration as has been arranged as recited in the independent claims so what the public at large is entitled to glean from that record is that when you arrange those limitations that the arrangement of the next device is different it is different and it just had to check your question about the issue claim fifteen of what's different primarily here is that the mounting component the hicks product the guide element the roller is directly fixed to the slider unit and the tracks themselves or attached to the mounting components it's actually a more complex arrangement th spin on that five history which is really divorced from the plain language the clear language of public is a title to rely upon and i would also say that it's not just the location of the mountain components and the guy tracks that was important for purposes of pat ability the the guiding element itself was specifically highlighted when distinguishing which is there for competitors the public at large who like porn it is clear there was an argument made in the briefing regarding this this cumbersome frame that really the real reason that the claims were what distinguished the invention from the prior art was the absence of this congressman frank and we heard a little bit about that just briefly but playing one does not preclude the use of a the same is true here after noting the prior rejection stopping says claims have been drafted to clarify the arrangement of the money components and slighter unit thus for reasons discussed below which respect not raised it now that that issue has been  simply has not been done here stopping made no attempt to explain how that hypothetical claim of avoid the prior art under one of two or one of three and you know this court has directly you very quickly in the remarks that were filed it was clearly stated that the prior art does not show the arrangements for the guys in their tracks as shown in claims fifteen and twenty nine which became one shift team so every step of they say were referenced doesn't disclose that discussed the alternative arrangement that the reference doesn't disclose the file history remarks do say as explained in the specification the arrangement of the sliding gate of the president three in the appendix a three thirty two that's a prior reference that was cited by the examiner the only way claim one defines over that patent is when you look at the force based components that are provided that is the arrangement