cases l s i industries resume its point had both rides for just a second would you just stand there for a second courts of appeals review records that the district judges receive very little help from the parties and narrowing the issues and traversing the challenges of a difficult path and case we have sitting and this record just doesn't suggest to any of us that the district court has received much help in limiting the issues on a case that as it comes on appeal present court pamphlet here urged that counsel has some responsibility to step in and jointly work together to help the court in those circumstances now if we could just  e concurrence with that in the past and there in particular where things sometimes can be quite complex particularly where we were judges that they not have a great of experience we have an extra responsibility as members of the bar to try to assist the court to reach the correct result and to take so that takes extra effort and  sometimes is seemingly contradictory to one's obligation as an advocate for one's clients but i think the two go hand in here well  yes now so to that extent starting with the claim construct there so many things here i'd like to direct your attention to the to the three so i do think you've got some arguments he about some of these kind constructions but let me take you to the three that i think are the toughest ones to your to your toughest cases and start with the removal of leaf secured permutations related to perpendicular removal from the frame individually removable in the direction perpendicular or transference of the plane  the comments about group individually move in a direction perpendicular or transfers didn't necessarily relate to claim nine related to the more specific claim ten and eleven is not correct instruction absent some special evidence to the contrary wouldn't this case present that special evidence to the contrary where you have some patents and reexamined some not there's devices why the term individual particularly in the six ninety four pet should an individual be a limitation in that six ninety four patent where is is actually in the claim language the reason why this or and this kind of illustrates the point it's in the claim language in the six ninety four it's not there in the others and it's you're trying to say corporate claims what you're saying on the basis of what somebody testified no we're not waiting to visual out what we're saying is that the specific arguments that this is a case of  says he distinguished the prior and in the retention member feature based on individuality he did that not only for the six time for but he also did it for the five were three and then do both the district court ensure that but the limitations not there those are in the us in the five forty three and on down there is no individual mentioned in retention member there should be recognized that decided to disclaim something disavow out when they stand up and say by the way i certainly don't mean that here and i want you to know that's clear and unmistakable do you see those an issue here all claims and all imitation it's a very general statement i admit you can read it your way but that's not the test then i mean it's hard to say that the patent office that the examiner knows the first full paragraph patent lawyer argued that every stone fails to use individual retention numbers on each of the first and second frames this relates to this you're telling us it was clear that the one and only anticipatory reason flat out was what they had to do obviousness type leaves a lot of issues open his judge and then was that the words in the claim really don't say what they say because there was some some unambiguous and and clear statement of in effect they disavowal of scope telling to see what they are being prostituted clear and unambiguous disclaimers to destroy or this is this is a case about consistency prosecution history disclaimer is all about the district court on so the first one patent and then another patent in other words to the trying to bring this into some manageable form with the district court rather than don't the whole place full of all patents all issues all disputed points of claim construction was there ever an attempt to say to the district court