prosecution history made it quite clear that to distinguish over the prior earth the claims in question did not require an extra click to bring down the who enrolled back and said well now we don't infringe on that patent because we we require a click to bring down a menu and your claims don't cover see the intrinsic record and then you took steps to rectify that situation by having a continuation and here's the interesting fact that i think it is relevant to this analysis and it is that  really not in question it's all about claims and claim construction a legal question it's almost like those two tests the merchant become one but clearly what you had to do to make a case and you know almost there is a central principle of patent laws that claim construction is very difficult in the rules can vary from time to time in that application can vary and this was a you could almost call it a close call it came here on appeal i'm trying to figure out when you lose one claim construction like that claim was written on its face the reasonable reading was this object to be baseless i don't think it would put it this way but keep it in for i can in good faith can have different views of this new even if in the ultimate its does not appear in the claim we're dealing right well that seems to be significant in terms of arguing but this prosecution history this this claim wouldn't necessarily picking everything together taking the based on a language in the claim itself you may not feel the same way the district worked it up out of the district court felt that was reasonably clear if you look at the specification popped about that the specification  about not requiring an extra click by the user it's all about hovering and having this thing automatically pop up there are no other body mints plane's data specification then you go to the prosecution history and you see that they linked allowances when twenty six to the parrot claims which which they have this woman taishan putting all those things together yes that is it is it a case where it's not a close call and there's one other thing and that is  that's i don't see that there's any problem there i could i mean i couldn't make the argument that it's displayed based on where the position of my cursor in relation to the hyper link when i click it argument can be made to say but the last straw didn't that isn't this the language does not literally preclude their argument well again it requires a good deal of as you point out interpretation we've got to go look at the specification and read some of that into what this language since we've got to go look at the prosecution history and see if that informs this language but the specification is in prosecution histories are always somewhat ambiguous depending on context sand it's not baseless is it i really don't that's a pretty strong word i really don't think you can adopt  maybe that's why the opinion got rid of the senate but the second part if i can if i may is this court itself if you read the opinion you get i'm not going to tell the court what they might have been thinking or whatever but the opinion says essentially talks about th ambiguous as to whether further use or action is contemplated such ambiguity is eliminated when the claim delaying which is viewed in light of a special and prosecution history and then the opinion goes out and says here's what here's what the there's no ambiguity the district court says there's no ambiguity and then taking that whatever else into account the district court at the district court makes that determination that it's an exceptional case ok that's we view for clear air so i think the question for this what you can do road better to eighty five alone and you have to invoke the inherent power and that you only do when i think the language we've used is one temple of justice has been