the district court had a fundamental claim construction area that pervaded its entire kind construction and summary judgment analysis in particular the courts construction of patient to exclude normal healthy individuals is wrong for at least four reasons what how would you consider anyone with a heartbeat hot know someone who is subject to a particular test in this case the m m r i ask that  patients definition infected the cardiac function issue because the district court erred in red line on the distinction between patient and normal healthy individual to construe cardiac function and that destruction is completely inconsistent with the simplified exercise and body that the doctor turanian disclosed in her patent but second and more importantly what does what's the fundamental flaw in the cardiac function and leave their fundamental flaws your heart rate in stroke volume or cardiac output yet to fundamentally false in that first that it's that the courts that courts basically the term data indicative of a cardiac function to made cardiac output the there's two fundamental errors with that first it's inconsistent with the simple five exercising body but second and more work there's four for cardiac function in those places were she was doing with good examples just like she a example of data indicating the heart rate well but at least there  things there that the district court could grab and know as important is there anything you can show us in the spec that says it's just just hard to yes the first construction of cardiac function was inconsistent with the portions of the specification that explain the use of either stroke volume or a representative stroke fall in value for example page a seventy eight column five lines thirty or forty eight there is no dispute your honor is had to be measured from the patient there is no dispute that the specification teaches the stroke boy it could be read or still work if not constantly marked as page eighty eight column ten lines thirty six through thirty be determined in any number of ways in the in the prior art knew how to do that this disclosure says all you need to do is plug in a representative  gave an example but it could be deep patients stroke volume you're more athletic than you probably pump more per beat and i do i disagree with that as well but the point is that arnie explain that that you don't need to to measure it from the patient and and this clearly explains that measured from the patient before and is just an example in that district court improperly converted that example as to being a requirement any representative value since a file isn't even drop all human dependent on my posture stroke well you can't be dependent on posture that's true so that we're not talking about a constant or a computation if we're talking about the patient's cardiac output we're talking about necessarily it doesn't necessary to search through fear it so much that you need it in time having trouble because you have to do an awful lot of explaining and the patent has four times said quite simply that the data we're looking for is heart rate and stroke volume or cardiac output just exactly what the district court found and very directly it says that four times and of using what the pattern holds a representative value and you can get a representative value for example by measuring heart rate at west point and give this question could any of these accused enter some kind of a value and store it for the computation that you have to make and pass yes by just merely by measuring the resting heart rate if you use the equations eight and nine you can derive the stroke for so there's once again but the same did remember that apparatus and method requires that it all be done by this single read them correct and that doesn't mean that someone's doing and calculation outside of the algorithm to find the value correct the algorithm but you have to show me that it's all done in the resting heart rate you don't need the scroll bar and that's consistent with both discussions of the simplified exercise and body and that's where we believe that the district court erred by converting the phrase representative values into one that was necessarily taken from the subject of these tests  absolutely not an honor because the validity is not a shoo in this claim construction we're confident we can deal with the validity when we get back down before the district court and your fall further on your on your question about the exact mechanism that district court erred by interpreted inferentially that second means limitation to require all ugly all of the equations one for not the patent clearly points out and doctor to write pointed out that back the all the equations are used for the more complex and body image that under the simplified exercising a body only equations eight and nine are need thus the district courts imply construction of the second means is wrong as well and should be reversed i see him again i didn't clarify one thing now even if i agree with you on patient if i disagree alternatively it is not desired to monitor scrope volume you can enter a representative value that still required stroke water which goes to the district court's interpretation of cardiac function is being ar providing data indicative of a cardiac function but how do you get around the ejido which suggests that it's just one for example you can obtain it from the patient is the op to obtain it i it just one example you can obtain from the patient meaning perhaps what mr rooke which was trying to tell us you could enter a constant that does not change the definition of cardiac function has been heart rate b simpler embodiment as it describes it here though there are not at all the one that it talks about is an exercise monitoring system for a normal healthy subject let me be clear no the district court did not write that our grief the patient simply identifies what structure as an index or pointer to in the specification what structures a certain noise heartbeat you're taking right whether they're held every or not for the specification teaches for a for providing data of a particular individual a patient and why is that word patient in defined to exclude a healthy person but to see in the body months of the patent is specifically for healthy people you're trying to tell us patients a narrow term i see it is a very broad generic term it and i don't see the context and i don't see anywhere here that the patent has defined to exclude a normal person in fact i think it's exactly the other way around it has included within its claimed invention and embodiment that covers normal healthy people so what obviously a patient is a normal healthy person to know not of the ten that's the claimed invention right system ten is that one has been spied for the patient in the specification for the patient so that obviously they mean by patient an exercise monitoring system for a been interpreted by the district court that's where this definition comes into play is in identifying the scope of the structure let me and my time from why it's interesting as well but drudgery carefully do i really have to deal with patients and i kind of got the impression oh if a cardiac function is one way that's the whole case i'm now convinced otherwise that i really have to determine patient because that defines the scope of the means function you are pointing us to the heart and it occurs after we get into the normal healthy party act from means for providing a party a function of occasions and throughout for it basically throughout the specification that they talk about structures for patients and then these are noted and alternative simplified for years so the definition of patient part and parcel with this whole thing it is part of the analysis and i have to buy that as well and before i can sustain your argument i don't i don't believe that be true with respect to cardiac function there's no difference within the patent as to what the cardiac function is regardless if it's of a patient or of a healthy or moral and official whatever that might be a cardiac function is defined within the abstract as well as within the field of the invention  know we have to have highly persuasive evidence before we would exclude a claimed embodiment from the scope of an invention you do and i think the specification provides this highly persuasive evidence and the specification says as you pointed out  states specifically that if you don't want to monitor while the apparatus is being used you can measure it from the patient at another time and you rest in washington as to whether or not you know does it have to be before it could be after i suppose regardless of when the measurement of the patient's stroke takes place the measurement still takes place and there's nothing disclosed within the patent itself that says we can use a representative value vest totally divorced from the particular user's physiology and as your honor private pointed out each person is different i'm not going to assume it was in better shape  true for example that is agent suggesting maybe there is an alternative way may be entering a constant one to rick which suggests while that might be a possibility this is a means plus function play it is not a it's not just regular equivalent of a person's actual value i you know there's there's ample testimony i don't think it was actually made it part of the record that you know each person stroke i was going to very significant you know  represent a value that is not going to give you is not is not one stop shopping for everybody that might use this device it's going to you're not going to get an accurate number unless according to this invention huge devices use resting heart rate and his dr to ronnie explain resting heart rate equations using incursions eight and nine which the only equations required by the simplified body might give you a an estimation of stroke volume and therefore the stroke volume is not needed and that's what's perfectly consistent with her simplifies exercise and body so that's that's the key here is that  that the patient or the subject or the individual in their resting heart rate is being used to identify a representative value of their stroke line for use in those equations now mr moran also talked about the patient aspect but as generator pointed out that what the district court did was adopted definition of patient that's completely contrary to the normal use a patient when you go for a physical exam or life what's even more important is that none of the different dictionary definitions that were identified by the parties support a definition of patient that would exclude normal