in a brief i don't want to repeat or briefly then but i want to point out of my opponent in his mind in his moving papers primarily was arguing that our claim that the claim had to be construed narrowly because of definition so you could say in a way that our papers did not expressly address the definition of core provided after the fact but nonetheless my people the moving papers details and that's about all he said what's important here is that he didn't deny he didn't say that there's some element of the plane missing from our product is that version doesn't say that so there's no fact put forward by on the moving papers that says there's a missing  because the moving papers had no evidence that any element was absent ok so the judge in his order to find his character simply and he says the enthuse product has a character i find that as a fact say there's no assembly here i find there's no center that's a fact finding contrary to the declaration and the supporting images from my client so what the judge it was a setting saw up is the jury in this n is a civil case the claim interpretation was done the patentee submitted a declaration showing how each element of the claims properly construed by the court was present in your system inventor means that requirement now on a motion for summary judgment i don't have to win the case all i have to show that a reasonable group of jurors could find infringement i think we got we got t he went back to the prosecution history stop the point to try to make it could get go was that they made the same argument to the trial court in support of their claim interpretation argument right and i just took it into account but right now we're just trying to follow the logic of what happened table under the frame which we very much seems like the qs products system of having a table roller mounted on a frame so what's where's the daylight for you that they like is if you the fact that there is some commonality is here or there there was still a paddle distinction from from our point of view and from the panel just point of view but my post argued that therefore that there are rollers and what isn't directly mounted then then they would have a prosecution history i still can't i've had to sit and think about it for ten minutes or so without being able to tell you without looking i can't tell you all i can tell you this that the prosecution history of stock market normally turns on the idea that in the have noticed by interval imitation to the claim or made an argument or both for a certain element or group elements in the claim and that's why so there i get back some coverage i've narrowed the scope of my claim that's across  articulate distinction over the prior art now if my opponent were to say to you our product is is directly mounted and therefore is within the scope of what you gave up ok that's a prosecution history stockport but they don't make opponents entire argument was focused on the wrong path that was cited against the excited begin the prosecution history my opponent argument was directed to the appellant distinguishing of hair curl up in connection with the prosecut found that the that the this isn't the second prosecution the quest for reconsideration for example at three ninety four is that ye movable structure made of manufactured part manufactured parts that moves on a frame that supports some other movable object namely the table in other words you started patton's both describing portable saw with two movable structures the carriage assembly which mov require that the freeroll are supported carriage assembly presumably for the roller supported it's because it's rolling that suggests movement but the table doesn't seem to be required to move is that  my not reading that accurately set of rollers where is the second set of rollers you're right you're right your honor in terms of that but it goes back to them to the claim to structure what is a character symbol and the carriage assembly in a go no the carriage simply has to roll but my question is doesn't this claim entail at least contemplate a the stand but the argument that the claim can't mean what it seems to mean because it would be invalidated by sit back sales if in fact the claim involves pushing the table beyond the frame correct but throughout the specification of this patent it for specific shows that there's two different moving parts of move relative to each other ok that's another question is could character somebody and claim time be defined differently than characters something claim eleven claim twelve i don't believe so first it goes back to single text and you have to take that into account and point to never tell us never claimed that and if there's no support anywhere there's in these specification a prosecution wheels so it seems odd to say that the wheels themselves can be carried to somebody when the wheels appear to be defining the mounting relationship between top of it with a table roller mounted on top of that so this two sets of wheels and then you saw what was left here is wheels on wheels which can't be it just makes kind of just won't work so the district court claim construction is correct the plaintiffs are the appellant's proposed construction just finds no support in the record and the district court properly conclude from this records claim construction is therefore entirely proper with respect to of what mr strong scrum pointed out in both of his declarations that there's nothing that comes between the table and the rails other than the wheels and for the reasons i've discussed wheels cannot be the carriage assembly and the court found the exact same thing that the wheels by themselves or the components including the components that make up the wheels in attached to the underside of the frame are not and cannot be the assembly so simply put the district court's not infringement decision was entirely correct now the town central argument is that somehow the district court ignored the appellant declaration accordingly just that the district court didn't credit the callous declaration was not erroneous because the declaration itself was erroneous it's just self serving testimony because the decoration point of the wheels and the axle not offered any evidence indicating otherwise meaning that indicating that my analysis of the assembly is wrong no evidence that's a that's a gross overstatement because we turned in the gr didn't have the answer but i can now i mention pages eleven twelve thirteen when i go through there my opponents the prosecution history of stop largemouth beginning at the bottom of page twelve last paragraph and in continuing to page thirteen  so and therefore isn't directly meant to refrain which is what the claim explicitly call for now my opponent doesn't say ours isn't directly mounted they can see there is this directly matter so the prosecution history stop of based on city pitch doesn't help them one because to be directly mounted it could be on the top of real that's all it's like saying mike is my hand touches the edge of the table yeah it's not directly on the table that's all now if you don't like that argument today if you think if i was the i would do i might have come to a different question but the point is the prosecution history stop was based on the written record now what we imagine it might be or could have been or should have what about the statement of a real ninety four to three ninety five where the african is trying to does the claim properly construed cover the product did i give the trial court a declaration adequate to give to the jury yes did my opponent come for the declaration denying the presence of any claim element no i did those circumstances i submit you should be