just construction making its decision wrong there are numerous examples of those errors identified in our reads but today i'd like to focus on just two where the results of those errors were particularly striking but before getting to those two examples i like to dress code as argument that the issues here don't turn a claim construction particularly with respect to the power conversion means limitation toyota asserts that the parties have agreed on the construction of that term there are over two problems with his assertion the first problem is that the parties agreed what structure in the specification corresponded to the power conversion needs they did not agree that doing so would render numerous other claim limitations supports including the envelope limitation and the integral combination limitation which are two of the important imitations at issue here well this time i'd like to ask you about enable give us your best argument that you don't have to have peak power through all speeds well as the eye can see acknowledged power and speed are two completely distinct components and it was it was just improper for the for the i did see the graph to pick out a requirement onto that particular limitation in all in the file history of the power requirement and that's one of the reasons why we believe that the keep our requirements not be part of that of the claim in that is as i read the prosecution history you did make a distinction over role based on the continuously variable rotational output speeds why isn't that  distinction that the judge lucker and properly seized upon because going to continue to keep the fact that the outputs fees are continuously very was nothing to do with whether or not those output speeds are being produced at peak power well while the you know inventor did describe that one of the objects of the eventual was to produce to a device that operates at peak power you know that object that object was not incorporated and into a claim stop i have a hard time understanding idea was in you know distinguishing that the types of systems that have multiple gears i mean if that if the range is small enough so that it operates within  and you're only expert make a concession that continuously that they're able was synonymous with infinite to speed as applied to transmission and he could not he he said several times or several different times and i cited them in the reply brief that it basically the two concepts are different the couple of the only not made sense to have a p power requirement as a requirement of a continuously variable speed but i think more quickly just focusing on the claim that the claim talks about a continuously variable out could speed it uses the word speed heading to claim it's not talking about power what it is but the claim requires it was not necessary to distinguish the prior art on that basis  hope as it was really hard to do under with that it's not performing improper parsing of the overall structure on a component by component basis it's actually hard to imagine a clear example of an improper component by component that started his analysis by stating his conclusion that the power conversion means limitation was not met because of differences between a particular structure particular component and the properly created as a whole the camino question that tired is products and french there are three fundamental aspects of that overall structure it contains two electric motors connected to a planetary gearset those fundamental determine that there was no violation of section three thirty seven according to the affirmed by the court and any one of the several commission findings in this case and also from a determination will violation particularly from its by the court on any one of the commission claimed constructions what affirm this ultimate dumped the claim construction of judge block turn that the claim is invalid for lack of enablement why wouldn't we perhaps take that into consideration and restructure the claim construction so as to preserve the validity of the claim see it is perhaps not requiring absolute  perhaps consider restructuring it to preserve the lydy again and again in view of the entirety of the intrinsic record the claim which cannot be divorced from the specification the prosecution goes through especially in this case  part in the testimony specification mentions peak power and almost every car and probably the best place to work is in column two the summary of the invention the very first object says an object invention is to provide an infinitely in infinite speed combination i'll stop there because the expert for solomon admitted that infinite speed is equivalent to variable speed and so every time in the in the prosecution history it see a reference to infinite speed it means variable speed and it goes on combination voter interest mission device namely meaning he's defining what an infinite speed means namely which can means throughout the entire range i think the answer to that is in column five if you look at column five lines thirty four through thirty eight it says as is explained in the following the vention it says very large the embodiment of course one and body image may indeed be over the entire range why can't the invention be something slightly different or broader than that environment and their bottom your honor i guess theoretically it could be but everything in this specification everything in the prosecution history talks about the power and relates it to the range of variable speeds and i think to suggest that that statement applies only to a specific embodiment is not compatible with all the other references relating peak power to i can't point to anything specific but it is undisputed that big power does not apply to the full range i cannot answer your question as to where is it enabled as to even a portion and i'd i'm prepared to accept that your honor now is to judge raters question of rye should we construe the claims to preserve the liberty of mr dryden is correct the case on this court makes it clear that that route should only be followed where you have an ambiguous claim i don't think this claim is ambiguous peak power is tied continuously to the spec to the prosecution history into the continuously variable limitation import limitations into the claim he did not change the agreed upon construction everybody agrees that power conversion means is a means plus function cause objective section one paragraph six and everybody agrees and what the current what the what the function is and everybody agrees on what the corresponding structure is all that judge rucker and did was interpreted it looked at the corresponding structure and he found a number of elements he looked first at the combination as a whole he acknowledged the court's case all that says you can't do it on an element by element basis but then he relied on case law that says if there's a central point in invention you can look at that central point and what is clear from the prosecution history in the specification is that mr edwards the inventor of this case wanted to appoint shafts he wanted to avoid weight he one would avoid a lot of parts and so he used a disk structure and everybody agrees that it disks drudgery twenty three is his number is pride of every embodiment the corresponding structure and so what is to say well let's look at that structure and incent and equivalent everybody agreed it wasn't literally it it didn't literally match the accused of ice and he found that there was a disclaimer there was  stop on applying to the to the shaft and to the number of bearings and he said that the two headed advices use a shaft and therefore that's a problem it has seven seconds left but i don't need to use all my tonight if you have any questions i'll be glad to answer them otherwise i will relinquish those twenty seconds to the court  one mention that there was an unambiguous prosecution disclaimer regarding the power key power limitation that that's just wrong there was no mention of p power at all in the prosecution history the only thing was mentioned in the prosecution history that they try to link to the peak hour was references to and if it speed transmission device that that does not give rise to the level of prosecution disclaimer process terms council mention that one of one of the that the patent you know immediately talks about one of the objects of the invention being to provide p power but you know this court imposing council with the requirement said the specification wink wink a requirement of speed and power yet when you look at the statements in the specification it's quite clear that he's talking about providing peak power activity was sleep think that particular statement to continuously variable just has that speeds have is distinct from the provision of p our talking about you know what that what the range of of continuously variable speeds were totus councilmen to map it had to be from full fo