honor i'd first like to point out that the district court erred in the case of the plane construction and narrowly construing board collection to require an accumulation of functions in this process claim but before getting to that and there's a issue of material fact in an unrelated that's liberation opinion from our expert dr mount the district court erred by refusing to even consider that evidence from going through the normal equivalent analysis is whether or not what we've identified endows equipment as the pressurized collection vessel which is the downstream acquit meant that includes a valve not a pressure relief valve but whether all of that equipment is a function of three cited in the claim which is is this equivalent to performing the function of maintaining the back pressure on the extruder that's needed to keep the temp for the pressure above at atmospheric so there's no boiling anything that performs that function to achieve that result that it has to be things that are in substantial differences to the way that you claim this and that so that's the concern and i think i heard j lurie express that when we're looking at a series of heat exchangers in a pressure control valve i mean how can a collection of all of that equipment be deemed to be  and a control valve that stays in a fixed position throughout the entire process is is simply a narrow passageway like a long piece of pipe so it meets the definition of vessel so really what we're looking at is whether or not well they're not all  maybe the tubing in the piping under the district court's understanding could be deemed a vessel but now we're talking about a valve and you know when i was looking at your specification it seems like it's understood about to be an alternative to a collection vessel and now we have in the accused product something that looks like it's using both together you know assuming that heat exchangers can be a vessel valve that opens and shuts and opens and shuts and gets clogged that was deleted from the claims as an option instead just a pressurized collection vessel where there's flow directly from the extruder into the pressurized collection vessel to create process the extrusion have directly from the extruder directly through this little valve is not opening and closing it's not changing aperture it's just going directly into the x the heat exchange equipments w process is by saying that in the tanakh a process you get a plug or form of accumulation that forms in the extruder and that creates a back pressure on the extruder so the evidence that in the record is stat was documents no expert testimony does document say we have this control valve which is just an aperture said at the beginning the process never changed and our attorney say there's constant flow well it is a continuous process there's no dispute about that it runs continuously but dr mount has given the opinion that is worthy of a trial and consideration by a jury that equipment that doesn't have a pressure release valve that has no control over the control valve during the process is the equivalent to a pressurized collection that's all because it fills up or accumulates the dispersion as the dispersion enters into it and maintains the back pressure yeah i got lost when i was a little bit when i was looking at dr mount iceberg declaration fifty one paragraphs long and he devoted fifty first paragraphs to the doctrine of equivalence and you know i suppose some could say it was he was very concise others might say he was very skimpy on his doctrine of equivalence and that the bulk of the opinion is this substantially the same way and so that he says by collecting the dispersed material in a can in a contained volume and it's ambiguous to me how he's using the word collecting i using it collecting kind of like the way you want to me which is receiving word the you've been collecting in the way the district court understood it which is cumulative and i can so what's your answer to that i would say he's using it in both ways because collecting in the broadest sense means the receiving or the gathering of the material and in the narrow sense means the build up and the reality of the situation that is that in this pattern there is no distinction made or function if you created two in the intrinsic record for quote build up or accumulation of dispersion in the pressurized collection and it's this if i could i'd like to turn a little bit to claim construction here because it's really raises a claim construction issue the claim construction here is with respect to a device this is a process claim in the question is what is the device that is maintaining the back pressure on the extruder the specification talks about options for the device that's claimed to something called a pressurized collection vessel that allows free flow of the dispersion from the extr der and when it enters at a pressure above atmospheric that maintains the back pressure on the strip that's all that said in the claim it doesn't say anything about the build up how much we need how much needs to be there how long it needs to be there because it's really the pressure differential that maintains the back pressure on the extruder so in our breeze we have advocated consistent with the case law that when this is the intrinsic record you give gap in some kind of standard dictionary or technical dictionary that would tell us that collecting means yeah really receiving because i didn't see anything in your briefs that we cited  so obviously it was collected it wasn't just through but it was collected in the sense that it was received not in the sense that it was accumulated in fact the fact that it can be periodic when removed it doesn't say how carry out a clear how much you need to build up  is stressing how fun important accumulation is and all that's important is the receding at a pressure above that you see it had a bearing would you say that a drinking straw is a collection vessel i don't think a drinking would work in the context of the claim and this is the problem with right now i'm just trying to understand what about a water flowing through a garden hose is not a blood flowing through blood vessels would be a blood vessel i mean it's a intrinsic record in the extreme together and the only place you find the word accumulation is in the dictionary it is and it's not the first definition in the dictionary it's like third or fourth there is no reference in the patent any sort of something doesn't mean that prior to that something was cooler and a case of very clear that because in that example we refer to periodic lee removing were not restricted to periodic lee removing in fact the patent also makes clear in the specifications that this process contemplates further steps which implies that it could go from the collection vessel into something else the filtering process   the dispersion was collected into a water cooled pressurized that hole from which the dispersion once cool to below one hundred three c could be periodically removed one school implies that the material is sitting there collect be construed to mean gathered together and they've never explained how gathered together makes sense in the context of example two and three gathered together includes aspects of it also includes other things where you have to have things all over the place like all over the roof in space gathered together in a smaller space so to the extent gathered together would make any sense at all as a construction in the package it would mean accumulate it would have the same it would accumulation i mean when i was reading the vision reasoning by the district court in your arguments it made me wonder if anything can be the equivalent of accumulation sort of like maybe you wouldn't be thinking that if well i don't think they're going that far i think they are trying to make the case for why your divine is the election vessel and the theory is th dispersion liquid medium that's coming into your vessel and it's sitting there at least for a period of time not sitting there sitting there is not right but it resides for a period of time ok so that theory doesn't doesn't relate to accumulation you could have a pipe with water flowing through it no accumulation at all and all the water that goes that pipe is resident in the pipe for a defined idea there may be equivalent to accumulate they just didn't just wasn't in that address that point accumulation performs a function in the claimed invention they have to in order to present a proper function result analysis they would have to consider what the function of accumulation in the clinton bench and what that function if you if you don't have an accumulation in a pressurized asil then you have a line of dispersion that ends of atmospher pressure and then you are dependent on the inherent pressure of the dispersion and the viscosity of it as it cools to raise the pressure you can't raise it any other way but if you accumulated in a pressurized vessel you can apply extra pressure at the end of the line of material and push that will push the pressure back up into the that's what happens in example two and three that comes out of the line of pipes or whatever that comes out of the shooter goes into this tank this under pressure from nitrogen so the nitrogen is creating pressure that's pushing back up into the extruder and making the pressure in the extruder at a high value if you don't have any communication then you have something on this for this record their expert said when when you're up and running it doesn't open and close that's actually not true but on this record on summary judgment we would have to concede that for the purposes of  there's there's no accumulation accumulation also has asked minutes from page thirty one of the blue brief isn't just a building up of a material it's also up to there has to be a sense of holding for keeping or impeding from moving on for  there to be a humiliation if it's if things are still moving constantly moving everything every element of the fluid that goes into this exchange or pushes an element of fluid out the other end there's no accumulation there's the same amount of material all the time is not a function of pressure except in very high temperatures that's not the record but if they wanted to have some theory on summary judgment that changes in the pressure in the extruder would change the amount of fluid in the heat exchangers they would have had to many expert report on that but they did it so i think on this record the evidence is that changes in pressures that might occur during the process don't change the amount going through the process  the court to result to note that explained in the texas supreme court case that says look outside the context of the patent for to see what the meanings of terms are but when then you conduct a legal analysis and that is when you look at the context of the past and  what meaning of the term a person skilled we are would understand from that and that's that's purely a question that could be underlying issues of fact here both parties submitted extrinsic evidence but there were no dispute about the content of the evidence the relevant issues but the district court judge made a call on which side the expense of governance was more persuasive to understanding how one of ordinary skill on the art would do this measurement that we will agree the underlying underlying fact finding expect it can and apparently did exist in this indefinite trial so there are so number one there are no underlying issues of fact number two the judge didn't make any your own just a couple quick quick points in response actor does not admit that accumulation requires holding x o merely notices that it's not clear what the cumulation requires and fact the district court doesn't really say how much accumulation how long the district court instead said that there was no basis in the claim to read in the negative limitation of no continuous flow but then said that accumulation means no continuous  that is another reason why the district court's claim construction should be reversed and a construction entered that's consistent with not only the intrinsic record that places no importance on accumulation but also the extremes of evidence that's outside to limitations of this court is very well aware there are many analytical tests that vary in results based on the temperature that's why we have a convention we have a convention that says you need to specify the temperature  that room temperature and the presumption is of no temperatures specified you're supposed to use room temperature the s t m standard doesn't say anything about that take that away it's a standard regarding something called apparent visc no thing in there that says you don't use the room temperature to fall and every temperature in that standard is measured at above one hundred degrees which by the claims own definition is going to be completely irrelevant because the claim district court did make a fact finding the parties submitted extrinsic evidence we submitted a declaration they submitted the standard he made a finding of fact what would one of ordinary skill in the art understand when confronted with this and we can believe that the finding