belief the st is whether the preamble is limiting nd is whether the prior art satisfies the limitation providing a vent because the st one is independent and requires relief and if the court agrees with us on that issue it doesn't need to reach the nd issue i'm going to focus my argument today on the st issue unless of course there are questions on the  was if the preamble is limiting it would construe the preamble in a particular way and our argument is that this alternative construction at the board suggested and i believe that's at appendix page an incorrect claim construction so the way we frame this issue your honor is one the board erred in finding the preamble is not limiting and two if the preamble is limit it should be given its plain ordinary meaning which would require venting to outside the subjoined assembly and if those two if the court agrees with us on both of those fronts and there is no dispute the preamble counsel st counsel this is just more i also don't understand your suggestion that these are independent baity as i understand your burton argument to hinge upon us adopting the claim construction you in so why is that not something that we would say is supported by substantial evidence that the bore did not conclude it has to escape the entire slip joint assembly just that it had to escape a cavity in your honor and the reason for that is the construction of vents was made specifically with respect to the limitation within the body of the claim providing a vent and the argument and the reason it says a cavity there is because the body of the claim specifically points to leaving the two different cavities our argument as to the preamble is that you the preamble says a method of venting a slipped  down but this is not my question mike you claim that you have two independent arguments on appeal either one of which could entitle you to judgment in your favor and i'm saying i don't see how you've made any argument at all about burton that is independent from your preamble argument preamble requires something something more and in addition to what's recited in the body of the claim that the board found the burden satisfies the body of the claim so for purposes of the preamble argument assume that to be true but at page forty nine dollars of our brief we point out that even if burton satisfies the providing a vent limitation even if burton satisfies the body of the of the claim it does not satisf preamble and the only way the board found anticipation was explicitly finding that the preamble didn't limit in this case and the board erred in finding the preamble didn't limit because inventor said we want to keep the venting we want that reduced resistance from venting but we want to get rid of the problem of contamination and so what they did was they moved the location of the vent to the opposite end of the slip joint assembly wherein they were able to keep the benefits of venting which is reduced resistance against slip but they eliminate or minimize the problem of contamination entering into the sub joint  in our patent air escapes outside the opposite end of the stub joint and it escapes into the hollow drive shaft to every expert and everybody in this case agrees that's outside of the subjoined assembly and i heard that but it's true in burton as well right again you're on i respect let me disagree and explain the error escapes the slip joint assembly into the hollow drive shaft the hollow drive shaft is not outside the slip joint assembly in burton there is a there there is a the end of the mail shaft has a cap on it and it's welded to it that keeps everything within the subjoined assembly and so i guess my disagreement is shaft is not a part of the subject assembly and the and the difference a fundamental difference with burton is that burton has that that cap weld to the ends of the male shaft in the subjoined assembly so nothing ever escapes and what you end up having is a circulation almost like a pump system where lubrication air is pumped back and forth between these internal chambers and the testimony in this case is that when you vent to outside the subduing assembly even though it's being vented to the hollow driveshaft a hollow drive shaft is a separate component the size of the volume of that cavity is many times larger than the size of the cavities within the slip joint assembly and so you do get venting and it's a fundamental difference judge more but one of the one of the important differences it seems to me is that in clean six of your patch you make it clear that the venting is not just outside in the st or nd cavity but it into the drive shaft assembly outside of the slip joint assembly and into the drive shaft assembly the large you know two foot long drive  st and nd cavity that still leaves room for venting within the slip joint assembly itself it distinguishes between when you would event out of the slip joint assembly a lot claim six for when you would then differentiation question counsel i'm telling you you knew how to specify when you wanted to venting to go outside the slip joint assembly and you did so clearly in claim six in claim eleven in contrast you just said you wanted to vent outside the st or nd cavity why should we import into that the broader venting outside of the whole clip joint assembly our position your honor is that the preamble fills in that critical missing gap and when you when you do the analysis of whether the preamble limits and whether it's provides necessary and important scope and context to the body of the claim the preamble is doing that work and our position is that the fact that you see that additional information in claim six but it's absent from claim eleven only further supports the notion that the preamble is doing additional work here every day and council the preamble is virtually the same between claim to claim eleven recognizing one is that berettas and the other is method but they both have prevented joy assembly language so if i were to buy into what you want me to with regard to the preamble then it seems like it be limiting and one and not limiting in the other here we've got it another difference is the method claim versus an apparatus claim but nevertheless claim eleven in the preamble brings the scope of these claims back into line with what was actually invented the specific improvement to a specific civic vented slip joint assembly and without that critical information from the preamble of claim eleven the scope of these claims is brought into where you get this contradictory situation that burton which is which is indisputably a sealed subjoin assembly resigned the body of claim eleven and we are simply asking the court to give the the plain meaning of the preamble its limiting weight which brings the scope of the claims into law the actual invention disclosed no broader i reserve my or remaining time thank your hono claims six shows that the inventor did not intend for the preamble to serve as a limitation but then yeah i was going further and i asked this court to change the plain meaning of the preamble to require inventing outside of a slip joint and x flew the internal venting from one cavity one cavity of the assembly to another cavity which is supported by the intrinsic evidence in this that they want to change the meaning of the preamble i thought your argument was that the preamble not a limitation at all not that they wanted to change the meaning of it your honor we've made both arguments that the  equally sized cavity still release pressure in that joint and so that's an burton discusses the how these passages reduce resistance in that joint as a result  but as the your honor your correct were arguing that the preamble is st just not a limitation and the body of claim eleven already has event limitation and it's clear it covers the escape of compressed air from a cavity to another cavity of the assembly and goes asking this council when when the when the summary of the invention says a vent for escape of compressed air in a manner which does not enable ingress of contaminants does that is that satisfied by simply venting from one cavity to the other seal system is a sealed system there's no concern about contaminants in burton so this is an unsealed system so doesn't the construction your giving allow for contaminants to get  this false dichotomy between a sealed assembly or a closed assembly and events that assembly and those two concepts are just completely different feeling keep in the contaminant limiting for example the claim certainly structurally complete invention there is already a vent limitation in the claim body goes argues that the limitation is incomplete simply twelve but did not choose for other claims like claims and another exception your honor is focuses on the specification and whether underscores is important the structure  in the preamble and it's true that in the five hundred and twenty past the final destination for the air is described as the drive shaft to the atmosphere but that's not the invention of five hundred and twenty pass it's talking about relieving pressure from the two cavity internal bore sixteen or cavity six and it talks about doing it in a way that vents from the opposite end of the foot and what the prior art shows including  you can have a closed system and do both of those things nice job council members thank you directly to the question of what is the meaning of the preamble in the event that it limits it means what it says means what this patent says which is venting to outside the joint assembly and judge moore i think you had it right when you said there is no way to do it properly within this small slip joint system and these these cavities you have to go to outside in the five to a patent it's going to the how to drive shaft or further to the atmosphere you know that it's getting the vet the benefits of venting to outside the subduing assembly looking at columns three starting at nineteen dollars to twenty five dollars talking about how you have reduced resistance during installation and you have reduced resistance during operation burton is exactly the opposite in burton describes a vent hole in burton it has a vent hole that is actually plugged the vent hole is provided to reduce resistance during installation and it actually plugs it in and says we're going to have increased resistance during operation but we're going to balance the different pressures on the i need side of the subjoined meaning it's a fundamentally different system the fi tells you what it is improving and in this context of course is not hesitated to find preambles limiting for example applied materials here and company and applied materials for example the question was and if i just may finish my thought and they're for and therefore the preamble and the body of the claim go hand in glove and they are they're used in combination to define the scope of the claim and again we ask court find the preamble limiting given it's giving it its plain meaning and if it does that's the true scope of the invention and burn does not anticipate thank you very much around us thank you mr north thank you mr chairman the case