when it ruled that it had to be the same numerical value in me ask you this in the read brief twenty nine alumina says that you failed to cite any examples where a in the formula to brand x large  amino acid so for the preferred environment throughout the specification the example is one monomer per chemical unit and yet claim one for polymer a is not limited to pep ties we can look at claim three but if we look its monomers which are nucleotides and there's no dispute that when you look at the number of nucleotides for an all ago that number will be more than the number of axis and the number of c's for example so when the district court capital level it is now coextensive with the number of chemical units x and chemical unit identifiers z which means content is improper so can you clarify the following for me are is it your position seems to me to indicate that a is a single integer for both both times it appears in whatever that is not an equation whatever that well and we agree they like saying is that it needs to be  form oh we disagree your honor because it's referring to length and consistently through the specification when the pattern talks about the length of polymer a as a peptide measures that you know absence and when the pattern talks about length for an when you count up the units correctly in figure two the numbers are exactly say and if they are premise that argument is premised on the notion that length should be measured by terms of chemical units right but doesn't that what is a column that ha this application correct your honor when for under scripts construction st and foremost i want to say that in looking at the dispute we ask the court to construe little a in terms of give the numerical range a its full value from advocating for construction as if little is defined separately conceptually for polymer a and i'll go see that it's supposed to mean length for polymer a but it means unit identifiers for all go see because there's no dispute that in order to understand how the court ended up in this case where it did we have to take a step back and we have to look at what phillips instructs us to do which is that the construction that naturally aligns with the patents description of the invention is likely to be the right construction so what is the patents description of the invention of the column to which we can find it appendix thirty two it talks about starting line fifty five this alternating construction above by functional overhear the chemical unite in a fire z two and that is the essence of the instruction is that for every chemical unit there is a chemical unit identifier without that there is no invention here there's nothing new so now let's  fifty because otherwise you might get a huge library now somehow this typically language ends up in the claim is a limitation we don't know why but there it is tagged onto the end of claim one so how do we measure the l yes your honor and represents the number of chemical units of x so each of those chemical units that make up x that forms palmer a i e the length the polymer a so i e means the length of polymer a is the number of chemical units so that's every single x x one x two x three and that is exactly what the judges claim to struction is the judge construed little in the context of x abend said they as representing the number of chemical units forming polymer got it right out of the patent undisputed that's the language there is at i believe the court asking me an example of where the length of all of the nucleotides see is measured by the number of monomers and council pointed to column eleven line starting line fifty five it says positive effect on some particular problem and then to know who it is because it gave us an idea exactly on it that's what it's all about how you how you go about counting for purposes of the minutia in the weeds is the part talking about the present invention provides a way of combining the virtues and most of the chemical in genetics will map summarized above the talk about how you do all of these through the construction of been coated kompany tauriel chemical libraries in in which each chemical sequence is labeled by an appendage an attic tack itself constructed by chemical sympathies to provide a retro genic way of specifying each chemical structure so in other words and  then goes on to talk about this parallel method of how you create this by functional molecule for every x there's got to be is the that's the essence of the invention and that is why the course construction of little eight i consistent the court's construction is that a represents the number of chemical units in polymer a and little a represent really never heard of her argument that i still haven't heard new to explain why it is  claim construction allows the alternating process that is the essence of this invention it allows it until they try to apply it then to our invention because if you then take their construction which is  so you're ok as long as you've got a chemical unit over here and a chemical unit identifier over here now let's apply it which is what they're doing to our invention our invention we would have then on this side it's the number of mon we would end up with fifty that would be that little a would represent fifty and on this is east side if those are allegedly the chemical you need identifiers which are you count up by the number of monomers we have with twenty nine now we don't have their invention you know what hit yes and here's how we do it we have one problem that's x one and we have one address that's the one so we've been under their instructions that we would have one a would be one little a would be one of the side and little league would be one on that side and we still don't infringe so either way so this court would have to find in order to find infringement this court would have to fine because it's telling my mom this court would have to find that the but here we're talking about the court would have to in order to remain on this case find out what was wrong in interpreting little way in the context of x even though the courts construction came directly from the patent was wrong in interpreting little a in oh your honor the trouble with a woman is argument as they point out is that a proper construction will result in infringement which is why they'd like to maintain the district court's construction but talking about the rules of engagement just  and we would not have a minimum number of chemical units x s for which is also improper in the district courts construction is the pattern is silent on a minimum number of chemical units but chemical units like unit identifiers c are logical they're alternating to destruction of the polymer on one side and a sense of the genetic tag on the other peoples by piece so there's a one to one correspondence there will always be one to one correspondence i think an important point is a luminous argument is construction preserves the full range of both and such that there can be one dollar to eleven dollars unite down of fires and chemical units and each could be of a length between four and fifty can i ask you what may be a completely trivial question why did the claim say and equals one question as i goes from zero to ten instead of and just and it goes from one to eleven i wish i had an answer but i can say in pointing to another error in the district or its