the argument now on appeal number two zero zero seven dash twelve twenty three or so mcneil versus milan labs interpret the claim as you would like to interpret it we have just rendered superfluous claims by claim to nine and ten which would be totally meaningless under your reading of the claim right didn't the district judge do quite correct in giving meaning to all the claims in reaching the interpretation that he did those are all dependent  not encompass dopier playing which is dependant on playing on is in that yes but of course that's logically correct but the issue is what does play one cover if you're you're assuming the outcome and say well therefore the the dependent claims were improperly drawn the other possibility is it depended claims are perfectly properly drawn because the independent claim does cover a paramedic and there's four of them so they had to make the things that can't exist because under your reading that are two or three and or four and five would not contain either a hydrogen or a lower lower alcohol  sad consequence of using the word hands and claim or the intended consequence of using and in a conjunctive sense which dictionaries allow well dictionaries the patent and say look if you read the whole patent it's obvious we mean to peer mate to be in the independent because we're claiming it here is a deep in and the same with two nine eleven to fall that doesn't care  doesn't care that well but there are three that's the issue in the case for you to say it doesn't carry the day but it's exactly what we have to decide they have or does it not carry the day we have we have a doesn't help us for you to just keep repeating your conclusion here we have the independently and together language which saw also suggests that you were looking at the independent side of the claim in one way and that together side of the the claim in a different  singly and together we see the opposite well so why isn't that a hint maybe not dispositive but a hint that we're talking about two alternative one involves single or independent the other involves group problem i'm having is that certainly this claim gives you lots of things to point to is reasons why that claim doesn't cover what the parties contend that there is a lots of reasons to point to that claim and find fault with that claim but that's not the test is is it is it incapable of being interpreted in a way that gives it some meaning and  in a way that that's reasonable in light of the written description in the prosecution history and it's not exactly the analysis that the district court went through and isn't that correct i don't think there is a  suggesting bending the language or rewriting the claims that all this clearly contrary to our precedent but i'm suggesting that that you look to the claims and the question is whether it's it's incapable of some interpretation that is consistent with the wording used and it's consistent with the entire record that gives meaning to all of the words used and if you look to the context of the claim and you look to the written description with a strong presumption probably required by our case law that the proper construction would be that which would cover the preferred body one of the preferred to violence and the claimed five obviously a prefer specification sets out in gory detail everything one would need to know about the pyramid so then to turn around and say well let's ignore all that because the word and was used when maybe  nucci which is very similar in the sense of us there are some little indicators here and there that you might do this or you might do that but if you well with respect six eight and there we have testimony from this will then hindsight yeah now now that now that i see it yeah maybe you could do that but is there anybody who says from the outset yeah you know i was looking for the way to get an anticonvulsant and i said let's try this let's start with this diabetes drug and after making a few modifications let's stop at this intermediate and test it t five he makes some some statements but he doesn't point to anything to suggest that there was any recognition of that at all but that th obviousness maybe rigidity in terms of applying a test to something else but even under k s r the problem here is not that the district court weighed t different experts views or affidavits and made up weighing in a balancing on summary judgment that would have been improper to the district court looked at dr anderson's affidavit and i think he is essentially the his evidence is essentially the only evidence that you presented and i'm not going to take your word for it you can't point to no one said that dr anderson's affidavit simply didn't contain enough to support frequently the analysis it seemed to me was simply a question a question of whether there was a reason present it wasn't and narrow other than just retracing the inventor steps which where is the base where what's the what's the basis for that statement is there no citation to anything else in the ark nobody ever wrote an article about it or said anything well no i don't but that's not associated with diabetes and aside from that it's just if you read this affidavit it just reads like hindsight it's simply a characterization of what what dr what where do you where do you get the explicit part of this it looked to me like judge chesler was very careful to make it clear he wasn't limited to something said explicitly in a particular prior art patents or other prior  he makes allusion to let people in this art knew he didn't say anything about explicit that i recall he says offers no evidence that there was a suggestion from any source to use  well you know he said that but he seems to be applying a much broader view even though he recites what he thinks the federal circuit meant but at the same time it completely discounts what dr anderson has to say about declaration that relates diabetes to f p p in addition he guessed that entire for mayor that's and he says alternatives it's used in conjunction with independently and together and those two then signal the fact that it is being used as a expression of these alternatives so in that instance here you've got this claim language and you've got all the intrinsic evidence you've got the claims that the planets claims you've got the specification you've got the prosecution history the prosecution history is clear i mean what are you going to point to doing th and we're not saying it is given some meaning that it doesn't have and say and it's one of the definitions of man and in context it's very clear what it means and jeff america who meant to it was used  specification that way with other words in a shop america it could only be interpreted to reach a nonsensical result and the same is not true here you've got in your view let's also makes would then be covered by a claim on don't we have that in column one where we just saw the the language with the when clauses that made it very explicit what was intended there you  lots of times it would mean both sometimes it would mean either you have to look at the context to know but there's nothing there's nothing that tells you quickly it's twenty five doesn't tell you what the word you know there's no there's no point in all of all of us just repeating what we've already started thank you all right we'll take the case under devise meant and