address several points and claim construction ruling from the district court then i'll speak to the ruling on summary judgment of known infringement the main claim construction term that we and that's a record at seven thirty eight third crease down from the forefinger is the midpoint of the eight to holy and that would take three eight to pulling underhand anatomy and all of the references are the same on the claims to be a single point or location such as the proximal digital crease or is it a region which has a type dimension and it has to have a high dimension because when you start reading glove near the base of the fingers those feel on gated members and that's the term that we are dealing with are in the fingers if they are on the fingers it has to be a part of the proximal digital craze and at the area of the base of the fingers so when the court concluded the base of the fingers was a single point that's not anatomically correct and it's not leaving to one side for the moment the court's factual findings about the location of the proximal digital precisely two points to make let's let's assume that the court's finding just put it to the side list was accurate here's what the court said on the and then the quote goes on to make an analogy that the location of the pads relative to the proximal digital crease similar to the location of a page in a book relative to the binding  claim terms as construed by the court along and think component which we turns to its original shape following a deformation in shape having an average with of approximately forty fifty millimeters and touch that crease and it completely covers it because first the crease this limitation is satisfied the court said well it touched it but it should do more but what what was required if it's at the proximal digital crease which is a horizontal line as everyone agrees nothing more is required and if it touches that crease it's covered it does not have to go extend below decre there's no limitation and claimed one or any of the other claims on that point so any gap as used in claim one and the other dependent claims means only that the pads reached for touch the horizontal line since you must necessarily be in the crease or in the gap and the binding assumes that it's it's bigger than that but that's not what the in a gap construction was from the court now the and the evidence in the record this is the second point and claim constructions there's significant evidence in the record showing that the crease that the finger pads every located at the base of the user's fingers and cover in the  when you look at the web site homes these are the shavings in white and covered by their red circles from a distance it might appear that the bottom of those white  at the top of the webbing between your fingers the actual webbing between your fingers that's not the case if you look at the well when i have the specimen here that white mesh allows breathing flexibility and it's not it's not the case that it's at the wedding of the fingers it actually extends about a half an inch below the webbing on the fingers on your hand and well into the palm so if the bottom of those use is in the palm of your hand you can see that the pads which are right next to it must fall over the proximal digital crete's and i think the court in  summary judgment ruling confuse the well being webs gnomes in the globes with the webbing in your fingers they're not in the same location the webbing in those gloves takes extends half an inch into the palm and four about the reason that the grip is successful is that it is and we use portion for gap of the hand where the ligament sixteen and i'm reading from column three lines nineteen through twenty three is that the group is successful because in a gap in claim one what is really saying is that the the accused member has to fit in or fill the gap in as the district court correctly noted if you approach and i would say that if you look at the inventions as almost anti thetical there was testimony in the record that dr klein or specifically intended to stay away from putting padding in the crease and that he designed the gloves in such a way that it would not impede the flexion of the hand when it closed it was one of the specific intent of the glove one thing that we haven't touched on is what is the work configured to mean in the context of this patent because it's not just that the member has to fit in the gap the glove itself has to be configured as it was  designed to fit in that cap so whether it or not i'm sorry the resilient member has to be designed to fit in that gap and here are the undisputed design of the glove and nobody really disputes th even if the court were looking at just the at the combination of the two you'll see that even the black cloth covering if you will is stitched above that the plaintiff identified as the digital creates and so what the court noted in its claim construction order is that a pad that sits above the proximal digital crease cannot fill in that gap filling function of the claim in looking at the language of the pattern there is really no dispute that both the and claimed invention and the accused invention are designed to be used with handled objects in a partially flex position where the court says the reason the script is i'm sorry to pan says the reason the web is so successful is that it is the unused portion or gap of the hand where the ligament and associated muscle tissue would otherwise push up over the fingers when your hand holding it handled object and so that the whole function and this was something that was really reiterated through the patent prosecution the in a gap in imitation was added to overcome prior art references mr mchugh distinguish most it touches i don't think that he really necessarily found there was touching pieces at most even if it touches it's still above the proximal digital crease and it's doesn't fill it therefore it does not satisfy the gap this club the this because of the way the glove itself is designed you're never going to be able to fit that blow lower than where the fingers and i call it the u turns not a very sophisticated term but because the glove comes down the pads are always going to continue to be stitched above where that view between the fingers hits the hand and so it even if if the theory was well maybe they don't fringe maybe they touch in an extended position and if you flats they're necessarily going to sit down first there's no evidence of that in the record there was not a single photograph a single demonstration a single video nothing was offered to the district no i've been waiting for somebody to ask me that we didn't argue that the glove didn't fit therefore you must acquit but but there was nothing offered to the court by way of evidence in fact the argument was well it's self evident but what was it self evident from it was self evident from looking at a picture of a golf club that doesn't even have cats from looking at a  relative to the crease in use again i would argue that because of the configured to fit language how are the member actually fits in use is not the test it's whether the glove itself is designed in such a way to to fill the gap w all these things provide a check to evidence of the way in which the glove itself the accused by on the glove itself was designed and they show that the design of the group was not intended to fill the gap so i would argue that i think with respect to the claim structure the court rejected our interpretation to begin in a gap that was a area below the proximal digital crease and that's what the court was rejecting there and it rejected the construction that we urge the court where the court touch they are not located in the proximal did little crease and it went on to use this book analogy subsequently in discussing the prosecution history and the function way result test with respect to the doctrine of acquittal and the court again noted that the member a member that fits above the proximal digital creates does not fill the proximal digital crease and does not perform that same function is not what used to be one measuring infringement as the court construed claim on the member must be designed to fit at the location where the pond joins the pingers in the proxim you don't have to extend below it that would be reading a limitation that's not in claim one or any other point a single line when it's when the foam pad touches it and the court found it at least it did that and we have evidence at eight eight zero three date sixteen that shows it does more than that but even given that factual finding by the court because it's a single horizontal line it's in the gap in the foam padding cover padding when you look at the inside of the gloves any of the specimens the terrycloth is someone over the terry cloth is a bit resilient itself so if it does have that capacity not nearly as much as this foam rubber because when you open the flex position which is how the glare was designed it's how dr kleiner it explained it it's how it's used in practice and you see it in figures in the patent figure three you see that it