six one three patent is directed to a c t r vehicle control system zero turn the control system that transmits drive signals parallel to the ground or the plane on which the vehicle is used and the disputed claim language states each integration link being moveable in response to a speed and what you configured to lie in a plane and there's a colon after configured to line a plane parallel to any flat surface and what your vehicle that incorporates a steering control system is used in transmitted drive signal that is a product of any receive steering input in any receive speed and and that those two elements the lie in the plane and transmitted dry signal are offset in and at their expert again mr smith has expert dr ration on this purported a movement and you it's at appendix one eighty nine he has a drawing if you look at appendix one eighty nine and looking at it there's a little angle i believe if i'm got the right page correct that little angle that goes off to the left on that drawing is the movement that they're experts contend that happens it's vertically i mean it's miniscule and this is the respect never even talks about that are expert put in other a dense that that movement need not occur either i mean the specification is silent as to that entire slot and that could have been taken up with some slop in the device where it wouldn't move at all or there would be playing in the in the arms what there actually were that i'm sorry that angle isn't actually a geometric necessity because of the slightly curved shape of the slot where the screw is it's  actually it's if you start and take as a given that you have this loss here that's likely arc shaped then isn't the movement in some ankle and the cess of the following from that not that you couldn't have a different slot but that on this slot isn't there going to be angular movement to whatever degree if there was no play built into the device or if  there was no other combination for a movement like you had some sliding arms that were per like a telescope that took up that movement you know instead of it happening there  yes i think it was all rigid it would move but our expert opined that is just as likely that it especially with silent in the spot and the overwhelming of a dense to the contrary like there's twelve different statements how the drive signal is provided in the plane that their their expert was really speculating that there'd be movement there i mean just as just as easy as there is movement there there might not be any movement you know there as well so the whole thing boils down to here is is the the prior art that you know this this whole pat t talks about moving that drive signal in a plane ok and that and there's no one discussion of movement at all there are experts extrapolated on this movement and the prior siebert reference the only time it delivers a dr signal if you do it perpendicular directly opposite of almost all the entire language of the specification so the the came out later in the in re smith cases one of them that said that you can't get too broad you have to look at what these is the invention pervasively described in the patent and not just try whereas that minuscule movement there is just as much evidence that there is no movement and it's not even discussed in the patent that it if the claim should be construed the way that we propose and not invalidated by a piece of bind the meaning of the claim we will ask some question of the following sort is this  particular restriction that we're talking about central to what the spec overall communicates the inventor's invented is it essential to central to words like that which only delicate words and in the pattern or is this one of those that is is there something about the invention here is what we discovered how to do that that requires i would say the guts of it were that it moves only in that plane and delivers that drive signal while it's in that plane because the whole guts of it and purpose of it is to save space in a riding lawn mower so when you run in the riding  more that can be underneath the rider be in a plane and move instead of moving up and down taking up space in the lawn more and that is that is stuff we discussed in the specification and that's why  this claim was drafted that way that it is but does a specification going to maybe a slightly vertical why it would be that the horizontal would be better than us you know like a slightly vertical movement how did how how do you know and i understand your point about saving space may there's no exact prohibition saying you know any bit of elevation is going to reduce that goal of saving space we're building something in order to limit a claim say some statement in there that there's no way this thing moves up at all some absolute prescription i think the of well i have a lecture site lexus one eight five two six twelve thirteen states an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor described his invention but it is undisputed or at least was undisputed before the board that that necessarily results in vertical movement and council seems to equivocate a little bit today but certainly even in the breeks to this court it's undisputed that there is vertical movement so because of that this isn't like the smith case in smith this court reminded the board that you don't just take the broadest possible interpretation and then look for an express disclaimer or anything that would narrow it in the  and then just leave yourself with that broadest possible language it was a reminder that we have to interpret the plain language in view of its closure and we submit that it's actually m t v who runs afoul of that correct because we have this explicit teaching  claimed in all of the claims and there's also no reason that a certain amount of vertical movement would boy that stated goal of a saving turning to seeberg which is the prior art i think it's important to note there's no dispute that sieberg has horizontal movement it's just this question of whether there can also be vertical movement and there's also a question in sieberg about whether it's truly horizontal when it's in the i do condition so first of all i don't condition the board properly found is the tractor or the lawn mower being in use you could use a scoop for example the motors are running and furthermore it's not even clear that there's actually an in use requirement in the claim but in terms of whether the part is ever horizontal it's not just that the links are horizontal in figure one of seeburg it's also that the spec specifically says when the tractor is in operation these lengths the follower links are in a horizontal position which tells you that there are horizontal relative to a tractor that is proved zoomable a sitting on the ground and i really don't well what i'm saying to be clear is a horizontally if something is horizontal in the tractor there's no way that's referencing the relationship of the tractor to the ground and that is actually consistent they actually said quote that the seeburg lengths were quote in a plane parallel to the ground of appendix seven twenty eight and of course they changed their position later on but it just seems that there's really can be no reasonable  used there is no description of a vehicle or a plane upon which it is used in seeburg and therefore we submit that it's not a one or two reference i mean they do use the word horizontal brief before we had an expert involved back then was before point where you could really use an expert we did use the word parallel the ground to at one point in the brief or used horizontal every other time when we were talking