and constructions of short spine and long spine but not a spine corrupt ok so you didn't say anything one way or the other about what the ordinary meaning of spine is or even in even what that word mean in the context of a specification that distinguishes a spine from a leg you know there was nothing in the litigation it was the reexamined going on and i don't think it ever got there they did a claim construction i think from the claim structure they were going to want to do summary judgment motions so that the first terminated so the fact the fact that the accused products in that case clearly had a central spine weed which the location was not at issue doesn't mean that the question of the construction of a short spine or a long spine particularly whether they had to be used they could be used together or they had to be used interchangeably you know the three eleven patent it shows the short spine being used in the console mount configuration and along spine being used in the the configuration where it's mounted on the x y z frame directly to the long spine the and some of the their infringing arguments were in the claimed instruction in the district court context where it had to be using or changeable ie and so that was the whole focus of the claim construction that at least for those terms there were a lot of other terms that w evokes a mental image the board recognized that it had this metaphor to anatomy and anatomy is used frequently in a lot of different areas including the furniture our legs as mentioned in our brief that we're all familiar in engineering is used frequently it's not unusual it has a mental image that evokes and the term spine its ordinary meaning is back on the familiar where it is and the board said because we didn't have enough description of where it should be located it wasn't going to give it its ordinary meaning it was going to look for a separate definition in the pattern the pattern doesn't have a strict definition leg with the spine of you could go a step beyond that and say that it has to be on the back and centrally located like it would be on a human being or with the wood was asked to was mostly just that it was an argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art wouldn't mix up the leg on saxton with the short spine as disclosed and are in the three eleven pattern simply because of separate claim construction briefing this was a claim construction was argued about in the context of the rejection of the rejections and you said this prior art there's there's only one way you find a spine in there s and then yeah that's really on the district court claim construction is in that regard it was taken out of context by the board because it relied heavily on that this is what you said at the board and i'm going to allow you to change your position there but it's really not what it was about because of the context the litigation was about that interchangeability it was all the accused products have that center rear mount the term spine itself evokes or it has a definition of that it's common knowledge and it makes sense that way so the normal claim construction should have stuck with the ordinary meaning the board didn't need to go step say ok did you specifically define it we're not going to give it its ordinary meaning because at the moment the metaphorical meaning that you've given it i don't have the board set or didn't have evidence of that in the in the case  remedied by amendment to somehow place a spine where spines logically appear it is possible or whether it could have been possible at the time to amend the claims during the first round of prosecution at the interval and the patent owners response but we didn't think it was necessary the time spying had a because your claim was stated you broadly and if we were to send it back wouldn't you have exactly the same situation not not if you sat it it could be equated with a lack because i don't think there's any distinction between saying with saxon and doesn't have a spine so the anticipation rejection just needs to be reversed and the obviousness rejections  enough because the only other reference to pfister reference is mostly about the tilt pan mechanism on the t v holding structure the x y z frame and so point which the common meaning takes over instead of pointing to the legs of this us saying well that could be a spine seems very strange well i think if you look at the at the pattern and you can see that so you're saying they're saying well ok you in a person your spine is your backbone it's in the back center therefore in a table a console should be in the back center but there are other attributes of the spine that they're not equating over i mean there's no plan there's no language in the specification that even comes close to limiting the claims to that by the it would sort of language do you think would be helpful like like you were talking about with opponents counsel if they amended the located support in the back up because i took mr stockwell to be saying nothing other then we simply have some rejections here if you apply the ordinary meaning you will say you will reverse those rejections and if you don't want to articulate a final construction that's perfectly fine because nothing turns out that's that's correct i was just making clear that if they have a coke and can i says you have i should know the answer to this with certainty by now amended their claims would there be some possible intervening rights problems are possibly yes and i'm not sure of the timing of the settling of the lawsuit prior lawsuit i so i think that the specification and the claims really tell you what the for short supply in the news and where it is and what it does and anything beyond that is really no evidence in the record to show that that they're asking for it and your point is that the latest do what the spec says the quote for a short spine close quote yes if you even look at a one page a fifty five column five around line a yes i mean what it's saying is that the spawning of the legs together are the things that are supporting the table and that's and so the they're saying that this is the functionality of a spine this is what it's doing this is where it is it goes from the top floor just like you invest in you're right they support i mean they cooperate with each other to support at doesn't mean they're the same again i think that it's a different situation because left and right have inherent meanings that everyone knows they're trying to treat spine of a t v console the same as an arm chair arm or a chair that is something that's so well known has such a understood meaning that you know you don't really have to say anything more to understand so they're going to use that term because they need to provide some clarity on what the balance of the term are how far that metaphor should extend i mean for example here you know when your body your spine is above your legs well and the story i mean there was a lack of evidence here that the board had to go on so all the court had to to look towards was the claims in the specification and the claims and specifications don't tell us anything about the location other than an example of it being in the back the same but otherwise without the dependent claim the independent claim should be interpreted similar in any way  i guess the if you put a t v console or any piece of furniture in front of anybody and ask them where the spine was located on it they'd be looking on the back and that's just the ordinary meaning and i think that's what this goes it goes back down to and saxons legs when qualified they mean it's true that the spine in the three eleven pattern does provide structural core support that isn't expressed limitation in the claim that adds to the ordinary meaning of the term the same with that it has to support the upper and more shells that's just that's additive onto the ordinary meaning of the terms spine it goes with the interpretation of a