cardiovascular be medtronic because an applicant hand is allowed to make it clear that disclaimer only apply certain claims and not to others and if you think about there's a very good policy reason for that you're the only reason to look for this claim or see whether immediate third party could pat the african the crystal clear that these claims quote it was explained to the examiner opinion claims were specifically drafted to cover the competitor crowd including the very right here  if you look at the three three picture and he said my problems prohibit the street segments that form these peace cannot connect to one another except at the end he never said straight things conflict or something else he only said if you read the comics  the applicant said it got to be a five three this last bad applicant does not believe that this prior application from two three three one or its files is applicable to the case the scope of the claims africa seeks is clear overall stance they wouldn't stayed in place long they would migrate up or down best because of what was going on in the body but that's not what was said in the supposed at the school even to seventy eight it didn't address that hurdles to overcome in order to have the judgment overturned in this case just starting with the definition of stand at least for a c s system there is no means that the individual reins meet the district court's definition stone so they're stuck with trying to challenge a claim construction if you read their brief it's not exactly clear what they believe to be the correct claim construction even offering new construction in there why we think the district court got it right based on the specification and the intrinsic evidence that specification calls a stone a device for mechanically keeping the active vessel open that's essentially what she said and required them to saw part of the rings of our stance in order to prove infringement but that's really not our problem that's because they chose to try to read the words stand on a portion of the stand by trying to read it on a portion they have set up that burden for themselves and they didn't need and under the claim courts claim construction the assistance don't need terminology that up close through to the rest of the patents  s force given to the prior disclaimer has to be neutralized by that paper that that one can effectively disclaim one pin undescribed and this underscores why i would lines were limited to this i don't want that but instead there's a vague reference to a discussion not exactly explaining what that disclaimer is and then saying and would like to kind of before from here but if you realize what they did in the the thinking order to do that there would have to be something works was that other than sign all bets are off and start over assuming that a person a reasonable person reading the file history would understand the reference to the disclaimer to using the term circular number they define a structure in the same terms substantially straight segments connected with their ans there's no real difference in the structure of the claims so what does hammer are they trying to raise it's you would have to be more merson reading that prosecution history to understand that to be making case was that it is my guess otherwise one could argue i suppose that any time you have a subsequent patent about substantially straight segments of the district court's construction is that portions of the stand that are straight or merely straight and extend the length of the stand in a c s s device those segments are not straight even if you try to read them on the right and you say that's not that's not a proper way to do it but even if there is an attempt to read the plain language which is not challenged on this appeal on a range p c s as rings do not ha