to mean specifically with claim to which the only claim asserted in this case specifically to mean that all four walls must slope now playing the meaning i don't think there's much dispute that when you say that something has sloping side walls that's a plural term it means that at least two and you know cases have supported that and i don't think there's too much dispute about that what this record did to find that to come to that conclusion was to read in an object one of the objects of the invention but that's the key there's it was one of them and there are and there are several there are three that are very important here and only one was focused  on and and the one that the court focused on the court actually said it has it's the issue is nesting without binding so if i if i may stop me if you don't want me to do this but these are these are buckets essentially buckets the transport flowers and the invention has several features the first column of the pattern talks about those features you have it mentions that there are sloping side walls and a rectangular block if you can picture that there is a channel that goes around the bucket that has an awkward the facing channel and a downwardly facing part of it that goes around it like a like a rim and then inside the crate if you will there is a shoulder and that shoulder is also ok i'm to stop you ok all right i think just to the heart of what i have where i thought you were going it's why is it not clear and specification that aim of the invention is to prevent find it talks a great deal about this fact your honor it's the three objectives that i was what i was talking about that it's fact diminish that because the law is clear that you can't just read all of the objectives and in this talks about three of them and yes it starts out with the objective and it ok and actually if i if i could for efficiency just the very beginning of the patent column column one of the title doesn't say anything about nest ability that says packaging for cut flowers right under the title it says the invention relates to a packaging for cut flowers comprising a rectangular crate sloping side walls has a vase has a full rectangular protective tube says nothing about whether there's any nest ability it is true that's the only time that the word invention issues in this back in the very beginning now in this column wanted goes on to describe describe various features one is nest ability and nest ability actually without binding so what that means is they can ask but there be no binding and it and it does in fact say that that is the name of prior to it saying the aim on line twenty one it says if the empty crates are nested deeply so it's proposing it's saying this may happen if this happens the aim is so to improve the packaging then if you go down the line thirty it says to this and the packaging in the preamble is characterizing that a shoulder extends between the top and goes on and gives what the structure of shoulder is i don't dispute that one of the shoulder part of the limitation here was in fact to to allow some some nesting without binding but there are other objectives and to and to to be and the important thing is that judge the district want to point you to the other of death sure the the second objective is is right there on line thirty five it says the said shoulder can serve as the support for a rectangular presentation car and this is it says quote this is important in particular in the case of somewhat longer cut flowers so here's another example independent claims you will see that and this is also true in the prosecution history even though the prosecution history was never presented it was discussed in the briefs but they're all consistent independent claim won if you look at one two and fourteen each one of them features one of these three objectives but not the other two so it makes sense inherent within the patent that that's what the patent he was doing the patent he was saying i'm going to have one claim six through seven this is where in the shoulder is capable of supporting a rectangular presentation collar what's important is a column claim one claim one doesn't have the nest ability without binding feature doesn't say that at all and  also doesn't have the third feature which i also wanted to mention which was and back in column one in the third feature that's described as an object is that there is a downward facing portion of the of th collar that i mentioned not the collar but that ok i understand what you're saying i think the difficulty i'm having a company handling it is because in all of these claims they refer to sloping walls and that's but that's what we're construing here so i don't think you're saying that there's two constructions of sloping walls with the nesting claim sloping wall should be construed to have four sides and then the other claim sloping wall should only be construed as having less than four well that is what we're saying and we're saying sloping walls means different things and claims one and the other and two we're saying that that's what the past few contemplate yes because in fourteen it's the only time it uses the  only time at all and it and we believe it's a perfect example that we do know of any case where we construe that term to mean one thing in one claim and another thing in another client i look for a case like that your honor i couldn't find one either way so i don't but i believe it would be consistent when you say either way we've certainly said many times that when a word is used in one way one part of the pat because of of what the concert that was done i mean the it's no question that the law is very clear that that this court has made clear that you don't have to read all of the features into into the invention are into the claims and and if you look at what was done the patent he made it made a point to have independent claims where one focused on one of the objects one on the other one on the other and and construction for both four was an independent claim and it was one that was just dropped by the time appeal or the time summary judgment came rather so your honor when we actually didn't face that issue at th with the shoulder and that and that was something that was not shown in the prior art that was something that the during the prosecution history the patent he talked about the claims only that related that only that had that feature and not the nesting feature distinguished at the prayer on that feature only on the downward facing channel feature there was another claim that's relied on  opposing counsel that was claimed by application claim nine in the prosecution history but application claim nine only had the nesting feature and it was amended to include the nesting feature it was ultimately c of and when it's true that one of the patent he was talking about that particular claim that limited to that claim only if that with respect to that claim you know there's the sanction because ours has i'm asking without finding that it was limited only to a claim then on the other claims the patent he said well no the distinction is we have this downward facing channel that's not shown and then another claims the argument was there was a presentation collar and that was a different feature and so i certainly acknowledge what the court has said about that you know you could have sloping sidewalls mean one thing and one claiming the other i believe that that works in this path and i believe that's what  plain meaning is more than one or more and there are going to use the other meaning in the other claims because we know what the aim of the invention is at least with respect to certain of the plane well i think the plain meaning is always the same in the claims which is just that it's two or more but that when you get to claim fourteen which is the only claim that mentions nothing the only one when you get to that claim you have to construe it and say well since nestlings mentioned and that's one of one of several features that's focused on it would make sense for that claim fourteen to say that it would be that it would include for other words you could have nesting and also i would say if you look at claim fourteen  it could still be construed as at least two and you could still make it consistent because the it's just tacked on at the end of the shoulder limitation it says it says the foot it says that there will be the solar project into the interior volume volume and extends between the top of the slope and walls and it goes on and it says to prevent one crate from binding to another similar crate when asked so you know  even if you say if it's two or more it would still be consistent when you had a crew of crate that bind if you didn't have a crate when you had a crate that could nest if you didn't have a crate they could not ask you would still be a fair reading i now council that up saying that he doesn't believe that there's any dispute about the plain meaning of the rectangular crate having sloping side walls in the claim language itself mo argues and believes that the plain language of the rectangular crate having sloping side walls logic and grammar would dictate that all side walls are sloping the applicants claim particular type of crate is a rectangular crate being a rectangular crate it has four side walls and then in the claim language they said that those side walls are sloping and if the courts not convinced that the language standing alone does have the plain meaning that all side walls much piece must be sloped we can look to the specification to enlighten  i believe the court found in view of the specification the plain meaning is that all walls are sloping i want to take their time yet and the important thing is that the plain meaning that aligns most closely with what the inventors were discussing is that all four walls are sloping  interesting leads on councils initial argument he noted that claim one and he read this passage or at column one line for he read this passage and he said this is the only place that the applicants described the invention and what he read was it rectangular crate with sloping side walls which are provided close to their top walls what counsel did not point out is that immediately after that paragraph the very next sentence points out the type of packaging that was being described in that general scope of the invention and that packaging is described in  another fortune of the specification is the only place in the detailed description where the applicants actually used the claim language a crate having sloping  crates can nest together is if all the walls are sloping so here where the applicants actually use the claim language in the specification they're referring to all walls being sloping and importantly and this is a point that your honour's made with respect to the distinction between an apparent different claim construction for sloping side walls in claim fourteen and sloping side walls in claim two if you take a crate with all wall sloping the reason it doesn't make any sense is because if a crate only has two sloping side walls it cannot be now counsel also touched briefly upon the prosecution history and argued that the statements which mall tech relies on as being pertinent to this point from the prosecution history  only being a political to application claim nine and that's kind of a distraction by counsel because the point is that when the applicants were making reference to and explaining what the meaning of claim nine was the asserted claim here was dependent upon that independent claim at that time and the applicants even stated in the prosecution history as all of this court's precedent follows as being independent claim included all of the limitations of its independent claim claim not so all of the statements related to i think because we only touch upon the first claim construction as you know of like to do if i could preserve a couple minutes if you guys touch upon the second claim construction issue that's not going to work around here  if we want to talk briefly about the the second claim construction issue the second claim construction issue has to do with the shoulder a limitation in the shoulder limit taishan requires a shoulder extending between the top of the sloping side walls of the crate and the channel base or the bottom of the inner flange of the channel this is just an alternative ground that would not be reached are my understanding is that the accused crates have now we're sidewalls and the subject of the second claim construction dispute is with respect to the side vent side walls so if the first plane construction issue comes out as at least to the reasoning behind the summary judgment order does not need to twice in the claim the first is just related to the rectangular crate itself the second relates to the shoulder limitation in where the shoulder must exist in the shoulder needs to exist on said sloping side walls so with the understanding that all four walls must be sloping the shoulder must exist on all four side walls in the courts of the shoulder i don't really know yes so yes under the court's claim construction of four sloping side walls they still have advanced an infringement argument subject to the summary judgment order for shoulders one on each side while yet so there is a dispute about whether or not they are actually on the side wall because there's recessed walls but in any event the patent owner has accused there's two sides of the bucket that has handles there isn't a cure shoulder on those two sides of the bucket and the other adjacent two sides there is a recessed wall which the patent owner has also accused of being a shoulder that shoulder is in a different location with respect to that channel and serve the basis of the court's summary judgment or this is that the ground of the judge will not infringement tech has shoulders because there is a dispute about whether or not there actually shoulders there are structures that the patent owner has pointed to and accused of being shoulders and the district courts the district court said with respect to the two on the bent side those are not the shoulders of the claim and the reason be ok because the claim language is a shoulder extending between the top of the sloping side wall and the bottom of the inner flange the or the base of the channel so that the court found that that plain meaning requires a short order that meets the channel bass or the bottom of the inner flange and the court found that the plain meaning of the channel bass and bottom of the inner effectively the inside corner of the channel and the accused shoulders in the mole tech products are well below both the bottom of the inner flange eat in the channel base and therefore do not meet that claim limitation whether or not the shoulders on each of the side wall extends to the bottom of the inner flange the which if we look at the inner flange is defined in the claim in the specification as effectively the interior wall of the channel and judge kendall found rightly so that the accused shoulders do not extend to the bottom of the inner flange and they do not extend to the base of the channel which is the express claim language required for an infringement  the district court's opinion there are photographs of the accused device can you explain to us exactly what she found with respect to those photographs s have that page i am and i was looking for a an easier reference point for your honor in relation to those so if you look at on page sixteen the bottom right hand there that is that the top view looking down into a mold tactic use product you see on the bottom right hand side you can see the outline of what would be a handle to carry that box and there are under claim to if you look at the figure six which is on page eight thirteen that is a cut through of that vent showing you can see the recessed wall well along the right hand side there is a plan b that defines an upper channels and a lower channel the inner flange of that channel was found to and at what is the base of the channel which is identified by the line coming out to the right hand side of the photograph on the bottom the accuser shoulder is well below that the bottom of that inner flange e in the base of the channel and therefore the court found no infringement  with respect to the so we are at we are asking that the sloping side walls speak for claim to be at least to slide once and because we have asked for that construction and believe that it's correct  sixteen when the court found the bit in that when the court gave its basis for not infringement and that was tied to the shoulder what the court actually did was a new claim construction analysis brand new one that we had never seen one that we had never prepared for one that our experts had never seen in fact the court didn't consider our expert reports in any in that were part of the summary judgment and the court does start out on page fourteen and that that it will it had originally said that it would just use the plain meaning of the shoulder limitation not the sling so i will show a limitation but then if you look at the fifteen it refers to the patent figures it refers to the patent specification and it very clearly in the middle of the page of a fifteen so that the if you shoulder is not arranged on the inside of the channel now that is a direct quote from the specification from part of the army at column two line fifty eight it says the shoulder is arranged on the inside of the channel side of the channel excuse me and that that issue is on appeal and that came out of nowhere it is even so so the court didn't actually use the claim construction that it told us it was going to use which was the plain meaning and the parties fought about frankly in the ok so can i just rabbit relevance to infringement because they use force open walls no it does have relevance to the infringement because two of two of their walls let's put it this way to their wall from our position it's easier to reach it's easier to read the shoulder limitation on two of their walls than with as opposed to their other two there they have two sets of walls that are ok can you just let me ask the question other way if we were to are four sides two of them look one way two of them looked the other way there didn't seem to be any dispute that the shoulder would be present at the shoulder it's call for in the claims was present in two of them what in the summary judgment know what the experts that's the way the illinois district court requires us to do it went through all the experts we were operating under that assumption that it would be all four would be required but the dispute was all it was over to up the wall whether the shoulder limitation itself which talks about where the shoulder projects inwardly it has to be between a flange and a channel and that's the language of it says and that's what the experts thought of up they thought about whether and two particular walls that actually occurred we said it did the other side said it didn't report say it well what the district court said is that is essentially nothing the district court started out in her opinion in its opinion and what did you conclude she concluded not infringement based on the fact that the q shoulder is quote arranged on the inside of the channel and then you tell me where that is yes that's at eight fifteen  at the bottom of the page and what you see is right after that sentence the court says the claim language clarifies the location of the childer limitation as do the patent figures and specifications that's a claim construction analysis what the court had already said she that the court had done that in fact we had operated under a different claim construction which was plain meaning and that's what the experts at thought about then the court says the court need not and cannot turn to extremes of evidence which again is misplaced because that's not what was being talked about at the stage of claim construction had already happened a long time ago and it says such as expert reports which to me tells me my expert reports neither party's expert reports were considered an issue a little infringement to be clear later on there's a question of equivalence which isn't was not on appeal here is not on appeal and the court does mention something about the expert reports so i want to be misleading but and then for good measure you'll see on page sixteen the shoulder is in the accused device on this on the side will us that have the best ok on a thirteen the shoulder is well it's hard to point to it but it's because there's not an arrow pointing to it but if you look on the very left fortune there's of it's there it's protruding if you will and at the top of that is the shoulder for trooping towards towards the left of the paper what our experts and everyone argue about in the summary judgment papers that were submitted that appear not to have been considered and instead what the court decided to do was say we're going to we're going to say that that you shoulder must be arranged on the inside of the channel and if you think about that that is about i mean if we had if that had been proposed to us i think there would have been some dispute a lot of dispute about it because a range on the inside of the channel what i think the court may have meant by that is claim construction at the wrong time when the may have meant is interior to the to the bucket but the channels there's two channels on the outside so inside the channel of the i'm in the channel appear to be down the channel or any it's not it's very vague and it's not a construction that it's the little top it's at least the the the you see where that says shoulder on the arrows are pointing down you know while it includes that it specifically also includes if you go towards the left or towards the right can't see the shoulder because it's internal to the bucket to the  so that the figure eight is the interior view of the vented wall that's correct and this shoulder is the structure that runs along the top of the vent