without oral argument just on the briefs those are the appeal two thousand and eight fifty zero two mcneil versus united states appeal two thousand a tash thirty sixty six sialic versus merit system protection board and appeal two from our perspective with a district court take the most narrow interpretation of the word therein and imposed a limitation of lens rims on the plane based on that narrow interpretation but the claim doesn't use both frame and they're in together in the same phrase that's correct the entire phrase your honor is primary slang for supporting primary friend for supporting primary lens there in and  hillary frame for supporting delivery lenses there aren't so really it's you know the word frame can the interpreted in the abstract the deeds to be interpreted or considered in the context that it is set forth in the yes they work because if you look at a flank and if you look at where the package discloses the frame is more than just the partial structures that touch or surround to a degree the len the nose bridges the middle bridges are part of the frame something called the extensions or the end pieces and i'm pointing to them on my own glasses the parts that come off the sides of the lens rims and connect to the pieces that go over the years all of those features are part of the frank and in a ribbon this piece of i wear you'll have a nose bridge that that's connected to the lenses by pins or screws or something else and you will have these and pieces in the primary eyeglass frame which are also connected to the lenses by screws or or something similar in those cases are really most frames the lenses are supported there in those structures hold the lenses securely in place and the lenses are located within the boundaries of those structures the word variant does not necessarily require a structure that can we use around or partially serve as another stroke what about prints and as i recall the district judge said that that meant that it had to include not only the nose bridge but other elements of frame around it was your response particular structures but it is that your view that this group did seem to believe that it did have to include additional structures beyond the nose i believe the district court concluded that the word included meant that it had to eye where industry as a frame in the past until five four past the middle bridge is described as being part of the frame for both the primary and use of the council was there oral argument on claim construction at some point i think there was i did you know have you may do so familiar enough with the record before the district judge to know whether the point you're arguing to us now were presented to the as examples of meaningless phrase all tears products all tears are just that i have waived that argument because i have not presented that argument for my colleagues did not present it to the district court my colleagues did not specifically make that argument but we are lying on our same claim construction before the different program not changing our playing construction we are citing all tears product the written this product as additional supporting reasons which as i read the interactive case we can do that we are not changing our construction right now what about the the issue of standing the issue of standing was an issue raised by the chair and i'm certainly i'm certainly prepared to address that remains for the phrase in the statute in like manner i believe that is just like the situation in the end so case the end of case s and exclusive life does not have to be in writing but if you are going to be suing in your own name without the past you know what you are is putting yourself in the position of a virtual virtual cat you know i'm a murder man and i'm just worried about a phrase in the statute that's what i'm asking about when the statute says in like manner it seems to be referring to the prior sentence that said in writing then the second sentence would have to be read i would think as if it said in writing and if that's the correct interpretation of the second sentence in the statute then how can you be an exclusive licensee because it seems to be undisputed that it's if it when you say it doesn't apply to all exclusive licensees it only applies to those exclusive licensees who qualify as virtual assamese but that is what the language of the statute says it says exclusive licenses talking about six years of licensees how can you say that when congress used the word exclusive license not virtual hassanein or any equivalent because statutes are always interpreted by the case l squares with the statutory language it may not necessarily square your words but the court has had opportunities to construe to sixty one over time in connection with exclusive licenses  and ask you to ignore the purely functional retaining mechanism language you claim to be eleven eight nine six patent and they ask you to ignore by an instrument in writing in like manner of section two sixty one that all other definitions of the usually the meaning of a word like that depends on the context not just the what webster says and that context is important and i would agree with you there and if you look at the pattern and you look at the claims of the pattern that the specification of the language is acclaimed exactly trap language of the of the detailed description and the summary of the invention the only thing that's missing from th claim well of course it's axiomatic and the specification for five further information about how to interpret that's also axiomatic but you know answering my question you seem to be saying this claim to be interpreted to in the frame and as a district court found the only way you can support lenses in the frame is by using runes that are disclosed in the specification and you seem to be suggesting  glasses with just the supporting structure on the top of the lens and no supporting structure whatsoever on the bottom so it's attached by a screw or an adhesive those that is that's covered by th is that if i look at their definition it is within the boundaries of lenses are held within the boundaries of and that would be inside the limits well how about how about if the if the r covers the top and both sides right down to the corner where the bottom edge begins but it does not support the bottom head is that in is that there is i think it i think it your definition and the trial judges of the single word therein and that you cannot prevail on the second ground the trial judge knew that where he said that the word including meant that had to include something in addition to the nose and i think there is some confusion there because i don't think the judge said including meant that there had to be additional elements i think that he said middle bridge portion meant that a frame couldn't just be a middle bridge because  i think that its latest here actually admit it have to include elements in addition why don't you didn't answer my question instead of telling me what he's arguing i'm asking you a specific question about what the trial judge said and what within the industry maybe an informal understanding of the were frame is that it covers both eyeglasses with the surrounding frame and rimless of isis as well i don't believe is evidence that there were some immaterial not for not intended for use by one of the skill in the art isn't marketing materials they're not materials directed to want to skill in  by our case small regardless of what exact language into sixty one is i don't think that the case law has ever decided has ever looked at the interplay between the language in the first sentence of section to sixty  sanctions on this grell how about right as in right cite there was no standing to submit to to assert the patent even under the written life written exclusive sales agreement since i think that's very important point here because if you look at the evidence here and the evidence being deferential into the effort and they show nothing more than they have an exclusive right to sell the united states we're not the statement emphasize that that's all that sentence said and that the next sentence is in addition the claim language requires that the frame quote include and quote a middle bridge portion comma which indicates that the frame must also have other components comma i remember period end quote so it looks to me like the district judge much as you suggested in your initial argument had it upside down understanding of what the phrase includes means and doesn't mean in the context of patent one so i guess your argument is unless we're persuaded by mr byrd scenes interpretation of there in that you're entitled to reversal because it's clear that the second ground relied on by the district judge king off the word include had to roll back or that's correct the judge had a look back with your honor and that is for the record at page twenty four of the appendix and i have highlighted those very wor made ok now rests is on your time for your rebuttal i really don't have much and you don't have to use of the whole but me like i would just like to to make one point about the way my case i don't believe that decision was dick in way more this court reversed a sanctioned order issued by the district court the sanctions order was issued on the grounds that there was no written agreement the infringers not arguing this on appeal but nevertheless this court in two willing which reversed the district court award of the sanctions order and the basis for it was that exclusive licenses do not need to be in writing to confer standing of the under those circumstances your honor i believe that way more is not dictated and that's really all i have left all right thank you very much  time just on the cross appeal