all can't see a simple plane or structure because not only does it have the complexities that you're just referring to but also the district court's interpretation of the brain ports as being in that cap that task is not part of a any kind of a plane or surface the cap is an additional structural component which i had i read it is is interpreted as part of the bottom will structure right and it's and if that's true then why is the dividing wall seventy six any differen if indeed it together with the oblong opening defines first and second just of juxtaposed ports it seems to me that either way notes of an alternative arrangement where you don't need the scan but even in the alternative arrangements you do need to find some first and second just juxtaposed grain forks in the bottom wall and as i understand your argument you're saying that the claim is written to the fold breath that invention and we are entitled to that scope of coverage and the district court should not have excluded any kind of a structure that a reasonable jury could find meets those limitations that if you are right because it seems to me it's gets confusing to argue that figure three illustrate the second and bottom and it may not you may not i mean you could conceivably have it could you not the first and second juxtaposed grain forts formed of any number of different pieces of confusion by characterizing that as a as an embodiment because one looks at figure three and one has to wonder does that wall seventy six really come up to the level that before you put on the test yes and so it doesn't say that this is a different body without using the test kappa tell well it doesn't really because either way that wasn't the question question is what it says in the speci defining two separate  the written description is not limited to the drawings or the described embodiments necessarily and here there is a language in the written description that quite clearly on ambiguously talks about the fact is the test cap that the two may be omitted i'm reading from the path in the middle of column or maybe omitted in the oblong opening in combination with the tail piece and dead may define the brain for and then later on i'm sorry in the in the previous page the middle of column two says it may be noted however that if a test cap is not used the oblong opening in the bottom of the wall in conjunction with the tailpiece may itself define the grain for it so it seems to me there is quite clearly  statements in the written description setting forth that the first and second juxtaposed grain forts make take on any number of different configurations and it is and that claim uses the broad language first and second juxtapose drain sports and it seems to me that the difference instead bottom moment instead bottom all but it seems to me the district court correctly in the claim construction concluded that the first and second check supposed drain ports were two separate identifiable physical elements that are adjacent or near each other and i i  it says that it says first and second juxtaposed brain forth in the bottom wall and it seems to me that if the brain farts that are in the cap placed on the bottom wall the construction shown there is one embodiment shown in all of these figures it just figures three is the exact structure before the cap is placed on it doesn't question is whether the district court was correct in the in the second ruling excluding a structure from consideration so if you take that away  of summary judgment your abilities and perhaps it's just an indication of the some of the some of the issues in this case that i'm i just say in concluding that i'm disappointed and i did not find your brief helpful at a you are doing that that we could still rule in your favor and affirm judgment of not infringement if we  disagree with jim ellis claim construction i mean if in fact if we agree with the claim construction that's being urged by o c then we have to send it back i actually effectively seem to say that that what's been called an alternative body meant to point to the spec wasn't in fact covered by the claims and that that that sort of claim construction sure i understand what was stipulated the judge amount of construction really required separate ports yes and that right and you have agreed that the accused device does not have separate