an entry of summary judgment on non infringement by a district court in that order there were four appealable issues from our perspective we have been thoughtful and selective in what we have decided to bring to this court's attention we have selected two of the issues for this court's consideration the st is the issue that the parties are calling the peris and claims i that instance summary judgment of non infringement was entered and the district court concluded that the claims themselves do not cover a paris and that is split inside any extrusion had slashed by a quick in making that claim construction conclusion in the summary judgment order the district court then went to infringement and concluded that there was no on because although as the court saw it was undisputed that in a paris and is extruded by the donkey process and it is undisputed that that paris and is caught after it extruded it is caught up in a component called a flap that school and because of the presence of that school district who are made the ultimate conclusion that there was no infringement into two streams and through their view they are really arguing a fact question that the district clerk had consider and disposed of as undisputed in the summ judgment warder and if you look at the order at appendix twenty which is that page fourteen of you were and i will i will quote it the district court in arriving at its conclusion of non infringement stated  that's correct your honor and the claims in the patent itself have no support for such a locational limitation in fact the pen doesn't tell you whether or not the tutting can or cannot it simply right the patent does shows some host cutting processing in that there are in the figure are rollers and other mechanisms that work to handle the plastic after through called the die and the glue passes through or around the dies in some way or form so as to create a parish in which begins to sort of drop out of the bottom of the extrusion that's correct and the district court then has a couple of cutters that the bisect split the emerging peris that's my understanding the fat that's correct and i'm going to have to correct myself because when i said the  all didn't give to a simple and it was perfectly clear that the judge understood how these things were funky because the judge was asked what what reasons why wouldn't you have been slandered yes and the other side said well went as far as amount will so the judge didn't except that the other argument was oh well the paracel can't be the liquid glue through inside the structure those were the two answers that it that the that that it split inside the device that is true and not outside of the device or after each taken out it's done within the device that is true and  what is occurring and i'd like to address this from from two levels or from two sources but what is occurring in which you've described your honor is that a paris and has been extr tool so there is a paris and that's been created it has been extruded and to extrude a paris and by definition and by the courts definition you must pass plastic across a die that is located point to two sources from the perspective of the summary judgment opinion the factual question has been an wrist disputed we resolve to be in a state at which a paris and has been extr limitation that said that the cutting blades had to be held in housing that the cutting blades as you stated it before can't be extrusion die slash extrusion equipment and outside of that the and as the summary judgment order has been written however i would like to address what the core the district court is addressing as as you've read it because it's an important extruded parents extruded verisign can be something that is inside the head yes so well it can't be inside the head because it hasn't been extruded absolutely if you some sort is the equivalent of that little bubble of water that exists at the bottom of the faucet and it doesn't have to come all the way down in a plastic for so long as it's just starting to come down that explain that statement if you turn to seventy six of your appendix there is the figure from the patents and as in all the good years and what the court was saying there is that if you refer to the component number two that is the extrusion head in the disclose system at the end of that component as disclosed in the specification there is a dye that creates a paris and that by the blades three the cord is simply saying that a paris and does not exist in the extrusion head number two before it has reached and passed through the die and therefore plastic on him if your argument is that cutting molten plastic in the extrusion head before it's passed through a die if that is your argument i disagree there has to be a paris and that's been extr extruded paris and is something that passes through the di after it's been processed in the extrusion head now the point of confusion here is if you turned to your brief cannot be molten plastic if you turn to page twenty of your reef in twenty two let me let me show you what is what is happening with the district court has concluded extrusion had and the flat die tool as they're connected and exist on the factory floor the extrusion head is the drum like component and the drum in the lab that two of the rectangular components if you then turn to page twenty two you will see the illustrations three sets of illustrations that describe donkey flat title and these are ordinary course documents they describe how this particular component works and if you look to the upper right you'll see the blue and yellow image is is an illustration functionally of how that two lurks and it states analyst round six layers of paris and that is showing your honor that a paris in has been created by that drum that i showed you in the image before which is the  and that harrison is then passed in a classified tool once it's passed into the flat died tool you'll see in that series of three young blue images there's a yellow and blue image kind of at a different perspective the blue component is illustrated and the words tell you what it's worth cutting the paraffin into half so that paris and then caught by that particular component in the mile high low plastic has been converted here and this is all to me only the classic question they had another interesting point to me was to product literature here for the dungy devised refers to the device creating a paraffin forty five there that's correct pretty simple case now it's made more difficult as i say because you didn't give us nobody gave us the whole reap day and anji runs around circles and want to deny the existence and and so them in the flat time dual is for the us is it's because it's a very sophisticated to go through a coding dog to be split if there are no further questions on this issue i will turn to the pre assembled structure issue which is nd one that that we good morning your honor some may have pleased the court erik chomsky representing mental and and city's judge rein i'd like to begin if i can with a question that you asked because i think it brings together a couple of these threads and gives us the answer is pointing out is accepting from plastic on me a mistake contrary to the claim construction contrary to the immediately preceding sentence that i read the splitting is happening in ready the di and therefore the ord is not saying so the critical conclusion here is that the cutting is happening in the flat die too all right i think we all agree about that not happening in the open air where is that in the blood as the patents say about where you it would not for two reasons and let me try and get both of them out there would not be an overall ultimate conclusion of infringement because we have other non infringement arguments and not to forget not i'm talking the parish and point is goes to what judge starr was talking about when he was talking about where the cutting occurred the critical question is not whether it is part of the saying that show me exactly where he is talking  in your devise does he do that correct ok so it doesn't do well the reason that that is important is not about whether it's in the open air or not it has to do with the order of the steps that have to plastic it has to be an extruded parasite meaning it has to go through a die and then it has to be caught and that's what he's the no the accused products do something different the plastic comes out may i answer the question in terms clevenger yes what's going on here relates to the order in which the steps are being performed as i was saying a moment ago that's the st thing and the nd and language we've been discussing on appendix aged twenty about the plastic being cut in a separate flat by tool implicit in that inherent in that is judge starts understanding that there is no separate dying mounted at the top or mounted at the bottom of the extrusion head when judge stark is saying you know what this is simply as i can as it goes back to this question about the order of operations that i was talking about before accused products you have extrusion of something whether you want to call it do or whatever else and then splitting and only then do you have shaping through a di that's what judge stark understood and that's what he was recognizing that the cutting the splitting isn't happening until you actually get into the die and what that means is that you never have an extruded paris in don't follow this question and you asked it earlier judge clevenger about the undisputed language this is also in the same passage at appendix page twenty four and you're certainly correct that means here in black and white you says it is undisputed that the extruded plastic harrison and in the middle of the act but he didn't think that actually it's undisputed that there's some extruded plastic heiress and how do we know that because he says it on page nineteen on page nineteen at the beginning of this section judge stark is absolutely clear that the parties  but i can't see it so let me try and persuade the panel of the mounted on for a nd to know when the judge asked to clearly why doesn't make before it created so i can't find a rationale with all due respect to support the guy so respectfully your honor i think that interpret ing judge stark's order that way is an inch airable to the district court i think that judge starr was not saying as you would have to conclude that he was saying to reach that bristle busy that he made up an extra claim part of the claim construction order he explains exactly why he thought that you can't split the molten plastic inside of the extrusion head or that i and this is exactly the same question we're going to stop the liquid do not believe that there is a fact finding that there is an extruded paris in here that defines term in the patent is that in order to have an extra to paris and it has to have passed through a di and nothing about that is a fa are two separate things they use the word die over and over and over and over and over in this court presumes that when a patent uses different words they mean different things and then both patents describe the invention simply a pillar a column that runs down the length of the die and judge starr concluded you said that he didn't address this anywhere this is exactly what are you saying at appendix nine hundred and forty six dollars where he specifically concludes that plastic wrong that the dye can be located anywhere this goes to exactly the same point that i've been trying to emphasize that dr oz will want to have it both ways that he specifically says that at appendix  forty in appendix two hundred and forty nine he treats the head in the dye as the same thing and he needs to do that because he needs the plastic to have passed through a dive before it's high and though one critical thing th judge starr concludes at appendix twenty is that the opposite happens is that you cut st and get shaped in a dye only after and that was his basis for concluding that there simply is not infringement that's the same point about whether the head in the dye can be the same thing and judge stark agreed with us that they can't be the same thing in the patents themselves are clear that they can't be the same thing and that the  driving in other cases have made very clear is critical to understanding what the claims mean is controlling here that the court's been very indulgent and i c m well over my time i do want to make sure that if the court has any questions about thank you your honors if i may i would start with the issue of with the argument that the die must be a separate component for the paris and claims patent and then turn to the pre assembled structure argument court to a passage from that order on appendix twenty page fourteen of the order and i will quote from it quote the claim construction makes it clear that whether the extr consists of a single combined extrusion head with a di or a more complex extrusion head with a separate attached tie and it goes on the district court heard this argument it contemplated this argument that the di must be separate and attach to the extrusion ad and it rejected it dr oswald was not pointing to the extrusion head in general and saying that's a dot the point is that the extrusion had has an integral at its outlet that when all of this plastic that swirling around in it and ultimately get gets combined all through the outlet in the form of a paris and extruded paris and that's what the court recognize that's what the courts always undisputed and in fact is the plastic at that time was it still in the lotus safe your honor that is not a fact that that anyone has touched conclusively it's probably hot  a liquid or solid i mean it's not no it's not solved right in some state of liquid scissors or not being used to cut it it's probably in some sort of disco elastic form that needs to fall over that that counter to solid total solid form it can be in some form other than a single whole if it's flexible right donkey kong extrusion di doesn't have a dietary outlet that creates a paris and there is a doctrine of equivalence issue that was also before the district court dr oswald took the district that ended up to be a fact but it's not with with that your honor we would we would conclude and ask the court to modify