ordinary plain ordinary meaning outside of the context in which you stuff it well the word data certainly doesn't the word related certainly does and while that's true of every word i mean every word you can look in a dictionary and there's some meaning is there its individual parts to have ordinary meaning for well we do think that was the what was the court book should have looked at the ordinary meaning and saw the specification didn't redefine or or or disavow the ordinary meaning that really should have been the end of the court's analysis the courts of applied the ordinary meaning and it's this court reiterated in foreigner the panda is free to choose a broad term and expect to obtain the full scope of the plain ordinary meaning unless the pen be explicitly redefined the term word of this about its full scope mr stewart are you familiar with cases like edwards life sciences are good for position from the score niaid they talk about a theory called interchangeable use where maybe you have one buzz word in a claim and then you go back and look at the written description and it appears from reading the written description that that one buzzword is equated with the second buzzword and they're used so consistently and interchangeably throughout the written description that one comes away with the view that the two buzz sets of buzz words mean the same thing you know i don't i don't think that's the case here what you have here is you have the phrase related medical image data used throughout the specification and in most instances and maybe all of this is it was referring to the image and that was it and that was the phrase that was used in the parent case and the claim turn and the parents also specifically included the language stored in a standard medical imaging format to describe the related medical image data and then you have the child case the continuation case where you now have a term related data which is used much less frequently and specifications and it omits specifically the phrase stored in the standard medical imaging format from the plane so i think you've got a real contrast between those two terms not not interchangeability ok seems like when i saw the usage of the term related data throughout the specification when you read it in the part of the data when that when there's a search for images it's not just for images but it's also for the what's in the header but our contention is that related data particularly the phrase sort of medical imaging format dropped from the claims related data is a broader term than under foreigner and event as in arlington industries and in other cases that it's entitled with the full scope of its ordinary meaning and then the you the patterns with suspicion because they are continuations the court held the case fifteen of the appendix that they must give extra weight the specification in the case of continuations and we think that that simply aren't supported by this court case law and the extra weight given by the district court we believe was extreme we believe that the court essentially substituted the preferred environment in the specification which you know obviously depends from claim one where it talks about where in the audit of the trail of the selected medical image dating clue the record of when the selected medical image data and the related medical image data were recorded on the data storage medium i mean candidly i think that that was a drafting error where the claim five from the original parent case referred to related medical image data ends and claim one from the par from plain five was updated so what's the best thing to do in circumstances like this are you saying claim five is invalid indefinite or and or you thing claim five  used as a way to attempt to understand claim one i think claim five provides very little guidance in terms of understanding claim one because it's it's not telling you what the meaning of the phrase related data it's using a different frame and i would i would submit that it's a narrower phrase and without any antecedent basis without any antecedent basis so that it does suffer from a lack of antecedent basis claims of a limitation from the parent case and we think it's very clear from our leaked industries and from and from the space of principles of claim differentiation that that's an inappropriate approach to take to claim construction attached to the x terrier of the device and was even better than the interior and still the court found based upon plain language of the claims notwithstanding the the individual examples given in the specification of the word have is given it's basically says that the case holds that the ordinary meaning the non technical term mode is sufficiently broad amorphous that the scope of the claim language can be reconciled only with recourse to the written description so is that your view here and of how they would come up with just because it's not a technical term of art doesn't mean that it's not blindingly clear what the terms mean data that's related to the selected medical image it's to news it's only has meaning in context and the concern i'm having and maybe this is judged as well is why can't we find that context given in the claim language itself why do we necessarily have to go more fests but in the context you need to look at them in the context and why it is not the appropriate context to look at them that the claims themselves rather than meeting up to the spec if we can find ordinary meaning to them in the context of the claim we would submit that you can't find or even meaning to in a context that claims both experts couldn't really identify an ordering meeting with with the two terms and that's why you need to look at the specifications and if you look at the that's the that's the claim system if you go further  explicit disclaimer and if it is where is that its force and disclaimer my position is you don't need a specific disclaimer because that cuts very ordinary meaning of the term related data made by one skill in the art at the time of the invention in the you don't believe there with the lexicography you believe there was something else here there was some contextual usage of the term related data that in your mind informs the understanding of it is was testified to by by telephone inventor that tax systems only allowed texts to be delivered in the two thousand and five or two thousand and six time varies so bad also brings back declaration that said that the application circle allows users to select medical images of interest search for additional medical images that are related to the selected images so throughout the history and the specification pattern that the only meaning of related there would be selected medical imag and the court came to a conclusion is the meaning of automatically enacted and and this case the specification has two references to the meaning of about initiating each step or if we were just talking about the function of the machine functioning well they have not that every single staff necessarily has to offload together without any human the final thing happens automatically or the final thing happens automatically in a computer system regardless of what happens up front and the computer going to do with the computer does based on the code in this case for example there's really no difference in that in applying compelling proposed definition what about that last phrase based on user selection right it would happen but we the user selects images that it wants from certain patients and then based on that selection everything else that happens automatically the insertion of the term automatically in this case our position is that it needs it have to happen without any user intervention and in our case the media writer you can select the images and then you have multiple steps in between that before the diagnostic type supports are added to the sea so it doesn't happen automatically and the same analysis would be applicable to the to the other my time's up thanks very much