approximation then in search of the usual and customary definition for the term essentially the court looked through a dictionary a see on bank decisions discordant phillips's indorsed but i wasn't wasn't that term which interpreted the example as corresponding to less than a quarter of a percent and moreover if you had an interference earlier and there was an the specification controls sure although in in philip's this court said in some cases the ordinary meaning may be readily apparent even the late judges in such circumstances general purpose dictionaries may be helpful and there's been cases like ecolab and more recently venice farmers farm about a month ago where a term like so substantially are essentially what is fin screwed by reference to disorder in customary meanings since it's a pla ordinary in customary english word now and the court found it were nearing customary meaning and didn't find when blacks laws dictionary because it's not a legal term in art then you look at the prosecution history for clear disavow instead with no meaning having been found either in the spec or in the claims or in any dictionary the court turned to the prosecution history has a blank slate to see could anything be found in the prosecution district to finish answering just laurie's question i don't think i've i've got into it let's go to this declaration a inveterate still put into the prosecution history now there are two samples prepare when he prepared his stamp all in a procedure and it's described by a sample one that he got this ultra pure point two five percent now two points about that first of all i argue that he was not be definition or the purpose of this declaration was not definitional it was to satisfy an enabling requirement to show that he could indeed produce a sample that is made in accordance with the scope of the claims  it was different then essentially free consisting essentially of is a term are as we know in the pan field and has a specific construction and it's used by both the application and the examiner it had a very limited construction for example on a seven hundred seventy four the applicant says in the connection with ending this term consisting essentially one of he says quote claim one has been amended to term consisting essentially of it's entirely quote entirely except for relevant materials isomer d goes on to say that's a seven seven seventeen seventy eight he goes on to say quote however no such a made to this report but what's going to happen it's it doesn't have any of the penalties of any n d a specs violation in other words if you're found it violates your earpiece a spare you're subject to civil penalties including w its preparation pharmaceutical compositions containing now that's a very broad statement of the scope of the invention and that's how the original claims were first repair the d i examiner says when when and when the claim turns consisting essentially he says well that could be you know that could include ninety ten and start and  it's clear that the examiner believes that the claims as originally written could include ninety intent now in the claims finally that come into the patent application at least to the patent suit what question about infringement and i think the question is raised what if we don't agree with your claim construction what if we do we agree with your claim constructions what happens then aren't french under this in by the way we didn't have an opportunity because the judge said we could submit no papers in opposition which we contend was a procedural violation of the third circuit law we think there's no reasonable juror because even read examiner in his rejection for point two five however one because of the internal specific cases of a certification submitted to judge kavanaugh the one hundred dr reddy's has undertaken not to release anything that's less than zero they ended up deciding a number because of the prosecution history rather than looking at a dictionary definition as sanofi ended of the word substantially applying it to court actually went to the webster's and said that essentially means fundamental and then they went to the word freak and said with back and so fundamentally went back and we think that that definition is only consistent with what the examiner was believed for us to argue that there wouldn't be because anything over fifty one percent made french and that's one of the reasons we think that isn't a proper definition if the court did what it did you know went to dictionaries of the appropriate words essentially free and so there is an expansion terms and then there was the pediatric trust the other through the looking glass moment i just want to point out of this ninety ten situation they say the exam he could not find any information that would lead to understand that they actually had a pure invention so the inner soul came back and provides his declaration and might like to go to a different dictionary definition one that says fundamental instead that we can't really litigated our construction largely but not only below we have that's always been our plain meaning that  now before that it was always different clain mind which in this court is said recently in the region so university of minnesota case and before have been tonally in general prosecution disclaimer only applies to a subsequent pattern if that pattern contains the same claim limitation added as its predecessor this is the only time you see roussel discussed in the context of centrally free and it was as support for the counter what the applicant says after discussing it is  then what we used to sell it was to show there was of court for the count in other words the specification enables this count that includes essentially the phrase you could make the species encompassed within that language not necessarily defining the language now limit and we made an example with zero percent are certainly that would have been support for essential a free oldie but not not largely but not wholly it would have been supported for ninety percent essentially three was basically the same scope is a separate for half and ninety percent client so he understood that essentially free was not being limited certainly not i stayed true s