calendar that afternoon and two cases that are being submitted on the on the briefs just for the record i will note the two submitted tases drop through that opening cases not have front row units it does not perform that function that function is not described in the claim in fact a claim doesn't even describe front row units so the simple act witnesses and genders witnesses testified to that you can attach the paralleling to at any point and they have that frame and still cause the lifting function and you would have it connected because it would be connected to some har the problem that i'm struggling with here in the way of conceptualizing what the function and message relationship is between function as a series structure specifically with reference to the term necessary on the energy is going through all those now you would say i think that the means for transmitting the energy would include the differential that be a natural way of characterizing the structure that is necessary to the transfer unity correct in that example i think that's right even though of course you could have mentioned that sitting in the back between the two rear wheels or you could have a front wheel drive in just that didn't have a differential my differential and you would then for that reason have to say in the context of that pattern the differential is a necessary structure i would have to answer to that i retain yes but you must look at the function and then consider what structure is necessary to perform that function respect for example the rotation function powers women's additional length are specifically described as performing other functions that do celebration function  describe all of the other structure that intruded in the judge's interpretation but it is an accurate description of a standard for our language which witnesses and motion i've justified very well known mechanical devices and th described and this entire issue to suggest that is raised could have been solved very easily of the draft or of that specification had been more clear and said look here's how we prefer to do it however public please take was giving a warning but it's in the prosecution history there's an argument that was made it's in amendment be the second amendment and it said appendix page thirty eight seventy four thirty eight seventy five and is they say that our invention allows two sets of rules rodimus to be used front and back and there we can drop a unit right down in the sense that they're talking about a breakthrough the bible created section of town and that argument find that some peaches that are in the more elaborate describe the body that are not necessary even within the context of this design and your response yet on several points again one is i don't recall those points being made in brief because i don't recall our of having to address them in our response for a second is my reading of the summary is not quite the same as mr justice my reading of the summary is that the same machine is described as described in more general fashion but it's the same machine and the language that links the summary into the detailed description of the venture i don't think member they could have set up a map and we wouldn't be here arguing with us today but they chose to use the language draft means they don't dispute that it's one twelve steps and when that happens very specific rules kick in let's all take a look case prosecution is to be used to give the public notice of what's covered and what's not and when the drafter chooses the means language and chooses not to describe the structure of the claim it's only fair to allow the public to assume that the structures are actually disclosed by general descriptions of things and not showing how they are connected like it is in the summary that doesn't suffice what suffices or particular embodiments that's what this  difference there claims are you describing the location of the power means followed by the option so we think that the plane landed itself says for the connecting is a function because there's no structural members getting from the hitch back to the mainframe for the sun means and without that connecting language again you'd be missing linkages going from the carrier frame back to the lift frame for the power of the slippage being so that the express language connecting describes what th claim but we're do where you have that construct the argument that the that the function of the language appearing after the word poor rather than the language appearing before and we haven't you can screw that clause connected to the carrier frame in the you know i could construe that in context i think the answer is plain look at it in context look at that precise language look at the main language which presumptively triggers in one twelve six application and make a determination is that part of the claims function well i guess what i'm clause for me in a way that you think would be consistent with your theory of the case because i think it is not an air frankly to read that language the way i just translate th problem here obviously in this this claim is that the most flattering thing could say that the hybrid it's not a pure means less function claim that it's got some structure and some use plus exactly what it does and again i'm going to take connected to a next time text or say that that should be construed as what the tongue does what it has a purpose when you're looking at the function you the questions which are triggered are what's the purpose of this mean what does a do versus on the other hand where is it or what is it structural and those are the cases where the presumption can be overcome where for example there's many cases which this court holds where there's plenty of structure which follows application of the word means and therefore not in the apply the statutes are all here connected to i can see how somebody might argue with the way that without any structure which follows which is the case here my view is that one twelve six should apply that should be part of the function because it's clearly stated what the means does in the context of that claim position i can just briefly comment on the powers with means which came up in mr chestnuts are again the issue is not what could have been described in terms of the structure this is a case where there's no disagreement on the function  there is from the hydraulic cylinder one to additional links to the parts actually rotated i think the president is very clear that if the only structure described is these links to still an issue and it was an issue in this case is an embodiment which lacks those elements equivalent to the claim still covers we actually disclose procter and is the us a but that's not the issue for construing what structure goes the i could go to one or two other points i have about five or six minutes left for the reasons we set forth in our free  we don't think that we should be here today even if mr chestnut is right on all of these points we respectfully submit the judgment of not infringement actually the verdict should be  evidence on others and this court took a look at these facts and said we can dispose of this based on one claim of the patients to predetermine means they looked inside the claim construction issue we're relies on separate legal theories of recovery or a number of separate defenses which is the line of cases cited by mr justice replied versus situation where there's a single defen a single legal theory that supported by multiple grounds example in the north point case there was an issue of anticipation and this court felt very clearly that anticipation is the single theory of defense even though there  surprised to see this argument bring in light of this exact angle that on the one point and the point i thought in that case was that there's a distinction between legal errors factual exactly the opposite with that the legal errors and what we're dealing with here is illegal in this case is it seems to me no different and it's positive then if the trial judge had construed they claim here to require that the implement  color green and that the jury would come in with a general verdict of not infringement i don't think you'd be arguing that who cares about the remus because they have to prove it every single claim limitation attempted to again with this problem by proposing a special verdict which outline the persuasive play moments in dispute all five of them for each independent play and asked jury did indicate yes or no or had it would have made life would have been a lot easier for us at a special verdict as opposed to a general verdict requires a different approach to the question of the glare well i can i can say this that on the federal circuit authority that i'm aware of in this in the infringement to take up the plans mr ball and made in the order that he made them the person referred to an argument that wasn't in his previous relative to the argument made in the prosecution history trying to distinguish the current reference by saying us she came up with their own verdict form the very simple form and even the sum of five form that you came up with obviously confused the jury because they didn't answer the question or two so i think she had justification for trying to jump the fires you first determine whether it's functional and if it's not punctual then it's not i mean what function so if your iris decided connecting you don't you don't you can make up your mind i would say then the decision has to be it's not