better ship issue the first was to focus on an element in isolation as opposed to the invention as a whole and the second was to not undertake a meaningful analysis limitation is material certainly for example an infringement or invalid analysis the inventor ship law requires a separate analysis however of the significance of that limitation in the context of the invention as a whole if every limitation was that the exclusion of the limitation in its own dependent claim sort of in an up and sell us satisfy a significance and or i don't think so i think to a large extent the fact that it's only a deep and it claim almost reinforces the in significance of it in the sense that this invention was undeniably patentable regardless of that limitation human claim one claimed one but every claim has to be considered on its own merits  claim eleven includes all the limitations of claims one five and they chose to add a limitation to claim eleven  recall that claim is about that claim is about an exemplary use of this modular controller with one particular structure the focus of the invention is to have a controller which you can insert into any the pride because it's conventional structure it's also prior art in our program i'm sorry what's wrong with what i said it's what you said is correct and i was going to add to it going that what i was going to add to it was that used as priority structures the invention is the controller so there's really nothing to talk about the most components of a mechanical invention of the prior absolute that which creates invention is slow right there is one paragraph the preferred a bottom in the sense that there is one paragraph the talks about how you would use this control or the entire rest of the patent talks about the controller itself it's  preferred embodiment only a sense that the inventors arguably were required to disclose at least one exemplary use of their new controller the fact that they put this extent or as little to do with a whether benson conceived of the invention of claim eleven and be extended or as significant to the invention of quite a lot of the what in your view you're saying that is your position she granted he granted summary judgment yes your position is that there will dispute and therefore what is the factual dispute i think i think we should win as a matter of law because you don't need it actually a briefs never said that do that i mean they've ever asked for that right what w  he couldn't have because he showed up and said are trying to create a controller for me and they created the controller he could not possibly have had conceived of using not trying to control that which didn't exist with his extent or because it because the controller didn't exist let me ask you just before you run out of time there's a footnote in here i mean there's all this other stuff that's pending right i mean with respect to invent a ship or joining men to ship it page to footnote two of the physical structure their internal external to the in the invention and says well the very limited make those physical structures either self made so somebody else should be an inventor here too we know that is i don't know whether they would run that argument again i would assume that if the  believe should that you don't become an inventor just because of one of these external structures then those defending claims go away there's also been some argument on appeal there really was no argument about the trouble that actually the writers didn't invent even claim one that everything was known and discussed this control word that was never seriously argued before was never found by the district court and i don't think it's there's no support for that there's no corroboration of any of that there's no  claim tracks the preferred but it's a preferred embodiment that that's why it's a conventional structure you get an analogy would be a remote control for a t v someone comes to talk to me and says invent a remote conception of that invention it and at there came a point in time where the supplier of the control or the controller that had an on off switch and the timer and the speed switch and something that was used in a multiple vehicles right but they're talking about using this or the question that the the exam tomorrow was it not if you isolate the specific arm that extends out that was in the prior hour with respect to other longer supports ok so the question is in in the claim eleven is the invention of ending the this specific type of controller to the hardware of the prior are or is the invention the use of the prior the inventive concept as having the prior or this particular control i think with respect to not try strategy the answer is both because not trying tried to do it with ways our trial had tried to have it had a strategy or it was trying to tie supplying this this product and in the process of that prior art extender in connection with this particular kind of controller with this particular solder yes you know that's the question is whether there was something invented about that we this record it's hard to know what the answer is to od magic that they're saying that c run by a massage teacher was new they say that in the summary of the invention in the background are they don't say that a seat lombardo size function is in the prior art they're saying that the entire course it's not in prior they're not suggesting that the invention is the type of controller that made the massage function work together with previously hardware  the request as indicated in the uncontested facts we should north america went to them and said we have this massage lumbar already had a seat already right tested already has a controller the one thing that they're demanding of us is that you add a feature to make it transparent that everybody knew what that meant everybody knew that they have to go looks like those we have a situation here which is that they invent this controller and everybody would have known it would have been perfectly obvious to it and extended to that because all along our supports hypothetically had extended why would that make the person who suggested the use of an extender a co inventor well the person that suggested the use of the sender also suggested all the other options but instead my question why wouldn't under those circumstances under that hypothetical everybody knew that extend years were you know part of the lumbar support why would somebody who suggested using an expenditure together with this particular type of controller be a co inventor it was anybody would have known to do it  it's the use of the controller along with the vehicle seat and the adjustable of arson or what units are going to have to know i'm assuming that it anybody in this industry anybody you know of the lowest possible skill in the r would have said well you got this new controller you can apply it to lumbar support you're using extender anybody would have known to do that it was perfectly conventional to do that why would that make that person  think i mean the use of an intercept their focus in the transparency simulators obvious to but but the but the bottom line is that in the patent itself they don't say that and in the patent itself there's no there's no reference in that they could have said that it was prior it was their strategy not to say that they didn't even use the extended or in the past right and they referred it thirty  says case need to go back for some fact finding and ultimate determination whether the extender would have been obvious it was a very minor common strategy if you would if you invent something that significant and then you start coming up with dependent claims of combining that inventive feature with the well known things and the prior art i mean is fairly standard business except in the in the context of his that it is it is standard practice in the context of trying to define the other aspects of the claim but in those context and you know paper my shack you have you're saying you have to disclose in the specification or somewhere that cardboard lined paper paper mach were in the prior art in order for us to not bring in the inventors of those those things yes if if the if the context is you had to go one way or the other if you're if you're doing a patent application and you're saying that they're not in the background prior as in here there's said that because they were the patent they they they weren't disclosed in the patent application as proper it was the template for four of the decision by the district court judge here  e you know if you're going to say that it's in the prior you don't wait until the patent issues get to the court and then say oh it's in the parlor i mean they there plenty of opportunity to present it to the patent office and this rather repeated references to the hardware of these things being in the prior or in the patent both in the preferred botted description section in the summary of the invention i mean that  they're pretty candid about it they say this is you know exist where it was done in the way of controlling existing hardware to create a massage function they talk about the  electro mechanical motor driven or pneumatic see multiple sport adjustment controller systems but they don't talk about the mechanical aspects of them and they don't see that the make in the mechanical aspects of a massager system but you can't change you know we're talking about a hypothetical pat issue here in the sense of saying that this is in the prior the or there is no reference in the patent application that this is a piece of prior they could have done that they could've mentioned that they acquired all this information from joe that's it they didn't do that so sure if we go back we have another inept conduct case on top of everything else  that we can defend this case in that in the strategy of the whole context of the of this case but i believe that the this record got it right it got it right the sense that they intentionally drafted this in this matter and they gave significance to these items in this matter the fact that he that that the judge picked the one well whether you go from claim eleven twelve fourteen fifteen with the second and or the first and third elements of claim on the first second and most of the third element of the game seven that the inventors all disavowed he could have picked any one of those  granted he could have gone that any different way and you're looking at the stay no go and you could do the same thing but the bottom line is that he picked one that was completely without question that disavowed by all three corroborated supported by mr benson as a contribution to the so the whole and invention as stated and and they work together and they were just add they were just ask to intercept receiving inputs and and send false signals as part of their activity we provided them with all the signals they went and connected the dots drafter the circuit board this kind of a product whether ever since and obviously extension i think it's one of i think at the very least it should go back i think that there is but at least a genuine issue