pex right it stands it solid it is not just merely positioned so that it can be moved around it is securely affixed and attached or you also have deleted mounted that lid course is not just positioned it is a fixed arm or it won't work well actually some of those there are three other uses of mounted are inconsistent with the definition you want stay use for the flange i would submit here your honor that they're not in fact when the applicant wanted to require some type of permanent security or permanent placement he  gave the public here in the specification manner in which to do that for example with the the cable he mentioned that you can use clips to permanently place that cable in the lid for the compartment that is in the bed you mentioned that for example you can to the gasket in the flange well it's a big it's a patch the gasket is never described as being glued or stapled or otherwise fixed and in fact figure for a figure that shows a close up of where this if the lid were permanently affixed to the opening the purpose of the trunk would be trying to be useless you never be able to open that lead because the lid is not permanently affixed it is merely placed in cutting a relation because all i wanted did here was take the gasket and instead of putting the clip on the bottom put the clip on the top so if we look at engaging in use the courts definition interlocking on his still engaged  lid but it's inconsistent with how it's discussed and used in the sixty five pact and the sixty five patent interlocking is really a term that describes how parts interact and it describes how the gasket interacts with lid the purpose of the gasket is to be whether tight and when the gasket is described in the sixty five and it is described merely as the gasket but even if the district court was was in north korean using the difference does it make to your case well again i don't know that it makes a difference to the case with regard to his conduct as the defendant but in the future if there are other defendants we don't want to have a construction of about their limitation see it talks about the compartment interior being accessible through an opening can't do that if it's close well but the lid is described in this claim has been covering relation configuration look for is the normal configuration that we drive around with their trunk lid open they drive around with the trunk lid closed because they want their materials protected in a few minutes here have a look would you dress the  two minutes were made to what ultimately resulted from six the first amendment added to limitations a gasket limitation and a channel change however the only argument that was made by the applicant during prosecution was that dependent from playing seven which was dependent from claim one claim in effect is the original claim with the exception of the means for change is essentially the same as allowed claim six that's correct so in effect the at and that claim was indicated as containing allowable subject matter from day one that's correct  it just seems to me there are some striking parallels with the honeywell case and if so that the earliest prosecution history of stoppel with respect to what was contained in claim eight namely th be applied there like this case here the only argument that was made with regard to claim fourteen and why it was it was related to the channel and even that didn't fly so ultimately you are left with the courts correct their r b s to get to the point there ought to be a stop along mounted because the applicant cancelled his independent claim including mounted and rewrote it has claimed fourteen right that's exactly right exactly and the parties agreed it but it didn't succeed in overcoming any rejection no that's right your honor he did but the fact is the parties agree that the presumption applies to that man the presumption applies to the fact that he  a specific structure gasket mounted on the flight so the next step in the ban is agreed that that presumption applies so the next step is can he overcome that presumption in order to overcome that presumption he must prove somewhere gain allowance of the claim now mr felix thinks that he can overcome the presumption by arguing today that that particular claim the limitation the limitation that the gas could be mounted on a flat wasn't necessary to gain allowance and that's not the case law the case law is that the tangential exception is very now and it must be objectively apparent from the prosecution and it's clear from the prosecution history that at the time of the amendment mr phillips believed that he was required to in arguing that the channel systems paddle mr felix states that the references do not show the channel of claim seven which included the limitation of the gasket matter on the flange which is formed at the rim of the better opening in combination with the other structures of claims one and claim seven so clearly in arguing for the pad ability of the claim mr felix felt that he was required to recite the challenge system with the gasket mounted on flange of a channel which is that a couple of points here are first i don't think that's an issue before the court because the parties agree that there is a presumption associated with the claim element that contains the gasket math on the flange but if you would like to take that analysis i think what you have to do is you have to look at the parent plane as clean want file clean one filed clean one was the subject matter that mr felix thought he was originally entitle to and that is cited the concept the idea of a compartment underneath the b gasket mounted on the channel d g it when it's in it's close position and drain examiner said i'm to require you to add all those limitations to the challenge system mr felix disagreed he didn't think he adds had to  the drain holes which is why we have the subject of this particular amendment that i just cited so the parties agree that the presumption applies to elements e f and g of claim six the only issue is can mr felix overcome the presumption and he attempts to do that by arguing today that he didn't have to include every single recitation of structure as is issued in the ultimate claim and again that's not the text of the test is what at the time what the even if the court wants to focus on what mr felix believes he needed to gain a lot of the claim it's clear from that portion of the record that mr felix believes he had to have a channel mounted on the direct the court to the red brief your honor a page thirty seven and this has a picture of the channel system or siding claim six and the channel system and mr phillips is believed to be the alleged quid one in the in bed truck these systems are entirely different they don't function in the same way felix has one channel honda and it's not in the district court agreed and mr felix is argument for literal infringement is one argument in two parts he says first what you do is you only look at the claim you only look at the accused russia in it's closed position the court correctly pointed out that makes absolutely no sense because you then don't have a compartment interior accessible through settle it's also contrary to laws of ground are as recognized by the supreme court in it's closed position is a modifying phrase that only modifies engaging said it does not modify whether take mountainside fight if the court adopts that if the court ignores that and says ok let's just look at it  lid engaging said lead in is closed position doesn't make any sense the claim would be the compartment would be useless i have an exam what i think is demonstrative if i take a sponge which has properties similar to the gasket in this case and i put it on this podium and i press down on that spot at no time does that sponge magically mount to the pole it just doesn't make any sense there is no literal infringement district courts position on this issue should be from it supported by all the intrinsic evidence specification prosecution history supported by the extrinsic evidence the expert testimony the dictionary definitions prior decisions by this court mr felix allegedly has two pieces of evidence that support his construction of a mountain as position first that he does as he goes to the dictionary and says well in some context mounted does mean position as you are points out what's critical is the context used in the six his expert does not say that mounted means positioned in the context of this claim his expert does not say i've read the sixty five patent i read claim six i read the prosecution history and in the light of all this evidence mounted means p mounting is to find a number of different ways in dictionaries one of those ways is position he never says that position is defined here in sixty five as mt and you further supports the proposition that the lid must at least be open at some time because you can't come together unless the two objects are some time apart that side i'm assuming the district court must focus on interlocking where the district i kind of a gateman that going beyond simply touching him and that seems to be gratuitous at best but i guess your argument is it doesn't make any difference if irrelevant even if the claim construction was wrong in this case in this case that's exactly right but i will also say that we think the district court was correct it's the gasket must more than come together in contact there must be some sort of interlocking so that the structure this gasket structure doesn't allow any elements in between agreed the district court could have used compressed in a way such that no water or air or pebbles getting between but at the district core mr felix accused times of infringing two claims claim to and claim six caught when you put the hood down there's often that little space and that catch and not last touch but you have to push down there has to be that interlocking so the district would say that makes sense in the context of cling to it also makes sense in the context of exactly that that's exactly what this particular figure fourteen shows a draining into the bad stuff right that's right here on it does here you know but again these are drawings that were prepared by honda these are altered drawings to show that the lid is closed here and when that is done the gasket show is not just like mr garrett at the sponge gasket and mr felix is just that and device is only