replace the cord there's no dispute here that the ordinary meaning of the claim turns communications passes by directional communications path are broad enough to accomplish wireless communications pass and furthermore  mean to shred twisted wires but it doesn't wireless what what what is it about this power that that tells us instructions that we should include wireless communication within explains that the two to wire telephone line is a typical type of communications path which strongly indicates that the inventors understood that the true communications path was not limited to or to watch our phone line that that was strongly suggest that the inventors are not using those terms anonymously that the communications path is not the same thing and it's not limited to a two wire and the other sections we're talking are stalking is out of the percent being the telephone wire but nothing here pointed to give any indication that we're talking about wireless human right that that is correct your honor and i guess it's a question of what's the appropriate doctrinal approach where a punters what is there is the problem is being solved is the inability to communicate over particular mediums that are unsuitable for u in which the internet will not work and in which the invention can be used to allow communication over that kind of medium but that's not the only kind of medium where the problem arises the same problem arises with a wireless communications where we're asking what is it here that references toward us from indication so that we have something to hang your hat on your i respectfully and i i read the whole rocky slightly differently which is fat the majority there why they don't think should be construed to include wireless even though the only disclosed somebody was in that case used a wired connection that there was no recourse in the case of using wireless for the invention and therefore this case present for connections in its ordinary meaning and existed come to us just on the in transit record and therefore we supplied an overview that's correct your honor the court relied only on its review of intrinsic evidence and focus to latch on to one the generic paragraph about the case he does that he starts with a point an ordinary meaning and they quickly goes to the analysis of whether this volatile lexicography applies here and he eventually gets to the conclusion that we have a case of this about and that finding is well supported by the specification here i'd like to direct your attention if you can do first before you get there to talk about the final point your friend made which was the kind of thing differentiation argument that the other clients of sensibly call out wired and therefore we should consider this this particular plan more broadly shared with respect to the claim differentiation argument they make a number of claims directed at a series of dependent claims and with respect to each of those dependent claims there's more at issue than the fact that you're simply adding the limitations first of all there is a presumption of claim differentiation but that presumption can be overcome whenever the specification is sufficiently clear to support the construction that is used by the courts number one and number two when we look at the court's actual construction we use the term twisted pair wire lines but actually that stepping back is saying but it actually would apply to any twisted pair wire and earlier we heard mr baker talk about some others as part of the claim construction with jones you can blow up i mean that was part of the now it's not really directed i guess what they're challenging is whether we should be using a plain ordinary meaning without any further guidance or should we be using judge able to construction here i'm asking because i wonder whether that sort of thing sure can do if we were ranges exactly within the range of one hundred meters or less that is used by eastern at wired lands that the prophet at the path is trying to get around the problem is you can't use these where connections are for longer distances because you can't detect when there's coalitions so they develop a new technology based on collision avoidance where one motive controls the other modem and so if your question is can you affirm based on the affirming the court's construction it includes the long distance aspect of the claim limitation i would say yes you can based on the fact that the stipulation suffer first to the fact that they're accusing this short distance wireless technology is not intended for long wired transmission medium is a core feature of this technology he does that page twenty of the appendix he says there are repeated reference to to our lines  emphasizes that the inventor was focused on this transmission medium as the core of the new technology and that any case law from this work over that what a poor teacher is or what an inventor is focused on doesn't limit the scope of the claim well actually i would disagree about your i respectfully when we look even at the case of phil rama which is relied on by the intelligence here the court there says there is no magic words and we looked at the specification to figure out whether the subject limitation is important is necessary is what we're talking about here is a communication path that is wired and then if we take a step back and with the column one line six to ten is the introductory paragraph of this entire pattern it says this invention relates information that work in access is particularly concerned with it then describes the modems communicating and i quote via two wire lines such as telephone switch problems those two instances in the specification make clear that what we're talking about here comparison the appellants are relying on some other sections of the specification particularly in column two and the purge a little while ago about communications have to quickly be constituted being constituted by a telephone line that paragraph is describing the prior art and what type of wired lines were being used to connect these networks it starts with a discussion of those wired lines typically being telephone lines there's no suggestion that that somehow opens up to communicate to a wireless cables and high hybrid fiber co ax cables a column three line seventeen to nineteen so again the sole focus of this is on the various wired lines that existed and how they're going to disavowed you don't need to rise to the level of words of exclusion if you make sufficiently clear that the limitation at issue is essential important or necessary to the claimed invention and you get that from him wrong yes whether you  rom or you look at work life sciences before that the courts say we're going to focus on what aspects of the invention are described as important as necessary as essential and then we need to look at the claims and make sure the scope of  up with which is the other core element of their technology was designed for use with a wire long there's all kinds of discussion in the patent starting in the very first column just south of line forty five forty six it's talking about the open systems interconnection and describes the various layers of communication going down to the physical layer at layer one and that explains why in a wired context because of propagation to lace we can only use the internet technology in to permit communication less than one hundred meters typically and we need to figure out a way to permit that communication over longer distances using these wired lines and then it describes the protocol that they have arguments to why as to why or part of it is wrong but certainly the rest of it i think is clearly you know wrong the part about too long to allow that over because i i'm having a hard time seeing how if you win today that you're in mor