first case for argument this morning is sixteen one eight one and  the last federal circuit opinion to interpret sixty seven sixty eight and seventy as limited only in body ones that are in that are capable of indirect detection in your in your motion for rehearing you did not say and the court failed to rule separately on the scope of claims sixty seven sixty eight says exactly right ok turning to clients one in eight when we receive the and i do not see you don't get there unless you went on that initial construction of that prior opinion well as to claim sixty seven sixty eight and seventy i agree with that as the claims one in eight we are taping this court we said in the prior opinion that the claims do not quote support the inclusion of direct attention and then we have multiple cases including dolly and others that say that the concept of equivalency cannot embrace a structure that i court precedent tells us that if you have a hunch and identified in the patent that's the function you run into but what about the way even his he said the difference is there that increasing concentration versus increasing strength isn't that a different way it is a that one of ordinary skill in art would understand those two things to be substantially equivalent i refer the court to  independent we never see are automatically part of the dependent like so a limitation at issue in the prior appeal is still an issue when we're talking about claims of sixty's is it your understanding the independent claims recites structures that that is claiming claim want a has to be something that complex's with something else to form the signalling pointing and there's no dispute that our products don't do that that's the that's the issue and what you know mr spears i be our products don't do that our products are modified in such a way that we have a very large molecule attached to our terminate cup but before we get so what your products to we've got to conclude that that that the lower court interpretation of our prior opinion was correct and that the claim construction that limits sixty seven sixty eight and seventy to direct detection and indirect attacks are only as correct right agree and i am let's let's let's talk that the prior  begins by reciting all five claims an issue the provocation the prior trial it talks about the claims issue throughout the appeal for first to claim one as representative of the claimant stations of applicable to in that case do we need to get to the question of invalidity of the dependent claims and i'm looking i'm asking that because i'm looking at footnote two on page twenty nine and the prior oral argument and you noted that  your counsel of oral argument last time suggested that the patent that suggested that that limiting the patent to indirect attention detection would probably leave claim seventy with no meaningful scope but that sixty seven and sixty eight could probably be reconciled with the construction how would you reconcile sixty seven well and again i don't i don't see that primarily it's just my job i attach i don't know i don't know whether that's necessarily the way we read it and i don't know i can see that again it's my job to try and fill content for a thirteen year later added dependent claim that if it's given the scope that  requires a small molecule that's capable of complex and with something else and i looked at it and said oh that's the same way of accomplishing a signification as having a large molecule  have where we say function may result isn't necessarily the end of the end corey well i think i don't i don't know i think you get whatever that whatever else there is to do i don't see how you can get in this claim to let me explain why if you have cases over and over and over again of course seth did dr put once cannot be used in jettison structural imitation of claims in this repeatedly absurd that a structural claim limitation may have little or no to provide a sensitive detection system that's what i'm talking about the structure this structure is essentially this structure that is as important to the claimed invention as the ability to be detected itself and your cases over and over and case where you have an expert testimony saying i worked on it i couldn't get into it but there was a feedback signal issue and they couldn't get it to work with one so i made multiple feedback signals and of course had well them then one when the specifically and uniquely with proteins the interaction is essential and that's why as a matter of thought there is simply no way to conclude our direct detection product our product where there is no feature accused infringement and then goes on to say that these are substantially similar ways to yield an identical result and that analysis was entirely proper and at the very least raised a disputed issue material that i'd like claim from which it depends instances of improper in dependant such as spies or such a small to layer stretch such as this case of her infrequently but when they do what the defendant has to advocate for is a finding of invalidity