contentions carried up for three years in a litigation the two claim construction is our first determined to insulated chambers and the second is magnetic course now when we look at the orders that are on appeal that is the mark of an order and the final summary judgment order where the court found in operability and not infringement and looking for where was the tipping where did the court get this wrong and that's found in the market order although the final ruling of the market in order for for to be insulated chambers doesn't come forth and say those must be sealed that's what the court ultimately found in its summary judgment border where the court go wrong and that is by i find a disavowal in the final history when there wasn't one the court actually misquoted the final history instead of saying insulated chambers what was said in the final history is distinguishing the sira reference the court the marker an order even said that has common sense a feel the district court thought that that made sense just as one would when reading the specification this penton is all about having voltage elements that have the immense voltage potential difference of up to one hundred sixty kilowatt the idea is to prevent a straight path since conflation not right on the heels of the court saying that that not sure if the court actually felt that way at the time of martin and i think the court got it wrong in not adopting electrically insulated but what happened in fact the mark  the court said it's still it's inconclusive whether that means totally sealed what it must require total sealed but years later when defendants were allowed to bring forth in operability defense and change the theory of the case in it adopting defendants argument that insulated must mean isolated physically sealed now defendants have been careful to not say sealed i told the court all the way back at the time of markman that it sounded like his argument was getting towards saying these must be sealed the court has been careful to not say sealed when getting rid of this case but it's clear the court never could have found i i can cite to portions of the summary judgment order that would help that the court would never find of it as it did that is in operability and not infringement if they were not sealed how do we know this  what the core determined is that the course must be must be something that that all of the elements are isolated from each other and finding that therefore according to the engineers this won't work well of course it won't work you can't have a device that is called a transformer that doesn't have a magnetic core circling it just isn't possible now when i say magnetic core there i did exactly one of the problems it's been in this case magnetic core has always been used in two different contexts by persons skilled in the art it's often the short version of saying the full core ring back at a time before course was it was a term in  case back at the time marksman that's how everybody used the term in fact defense had the very same understanding of cores in the claim as point the very same you look at figure one the claims have the benefit of saying seven and seven prime they have the benefit of numbers in the claim from the european practice seven and seven prime are shown as being two segments two separate segments of we know from figure one that the chamber chambers cannot be completely sealed as the court finally adopted we know that the core ring passes between the two chambers figure one is patent as being you take the cover off you're looking down inside the housing specifications clear that all of the transformer elements are found inside the housing there's no other way to look at it but the court taking defendants argument that you can disavow figure the court then went on to find attractively that the chambers are seals that there's nothing that can pass between them therefore this can't work and it's absurd that it's not moving is that the soul referring to figure one where we see the the bar looks like a bar going across item six is that the that the sole area what place where the two chambers are joined or the two cores are joined no you're actually the reason that you will or completely physically isolated should not be read into the claim is looking at the specification claims in context over a claim one specifically referencing seven and seven prime that shown in figure one is an example fairly blatant example what the court but the court nor the claim should be read in context of the specification that electrical isolation electrical insulation and the gaps in voids that the court finally found that existed in the q s product and thereby found that there's no infringement is actually just a smile gap around the outer edge is that what's happened is the court has has adopted something that's contrary to specifications teaching where many of problems with the court that's true the court conflates that the use of the term core between core being referenced to entire quartering but in context it's clear is also referencing at times person skill use cor to talk about a relevant segment of the core ring that is the segment that's associated with the carrier of either than the negative or the positive voltage components is problem here the fact that this is obviously a foreign originated that is not written the way it might have been written it was written here while here in the states to start with that as a result there are lots of little gaps here and there this record struggle to try to figure out how to piece this all together says this is that the problem  here i disagree with that last and it is true this came from a foreign translation then there are some women or men its main even the men after the office action which really clarify things such as that the abstract   closed loop so that there would be a magnetic flux that's not really exist or believe there is not excuse me that that's not the result of foreign application coming into the united states in fact defendant's own interest in anything in there that describes that explicitly or i know that my point is that was fatal and i'm just asking you if that is a correct that the specification doesn't describe does it say we have two portions of a core with coils wrapped around them and that the core is as everyone would understand a complete closed loop so that bottom the the bottom part of the core and you don't see it's missing there i mean you have to say well but that drawing is not necessarily engineering coming from an application that is gone from spain to the united states this is merely how the term is used defendant's own expert at the same time the invention  assume that there is testimony in time of the mark minutes in the record that person still new york recognized figure three as demonstrating a very significant part of the invention with regard to the voltage elements not meant to doesn't impart something that not it is not there so that's a missing piece that creates question or ambiguity or is something that the district court had to wrestle with to try to making certain assumptions talks about in column three for example and forty four says the transformer of the invention so you use of the word transformer you can argue implicitly  done i'm clean structure insert certainly when you to the point of saying something is inoperable you must read in a lot of specification and with an understanding towards that which the purpose is directed this is directed to be a transformer that prevents trade passes it's not inappropriate to ignore that in fact it's appropriate to understand that and sent hence it should be a circular ring for now again had that been at issue at the time of markman had we known that corps was it issue which it was not then i think we wouldn't this wouldn't have gone anywhere frankly at the time of the marking and hearing the experts would not have been in artful when they talked about after a fact its cover they brought in a end operability theory that was completely opposite of their own contention throughout the case how how everybody had understood this patent to be read three years and this is and should affirm the lower court's judgment for three separate reasons because there are really three reasons in the record that support the district court's decision mr rudd make or touched on a couple of them  proxy process control versus hydra claim and other cases of course had so you're right it doesn't happen very often but it did happen in this case and the one the one basis that we briefed to the district court the district court quoted a part of their expert's testimony about this but didn't really close and close the loop on it your honor is that the claim requires that all of the elements of each group a claim describes a group of positive voltage elements and a group of negative voltage elements those groups of elements around sorry to differentiated groups let me read from the claim so i don't get this wrong it says that the rectifiers filters resistive dividers high voltage switches and the magnetic cores are arranged into differentiated groups the pattern then goes on in the last sentence to say so that at an equal distance from the zero voltage level that elements of each group have x with a tension of voltage and that's very important because clearly under the claim language the magnetic core is one of those elements of each differentiated group so by the plain terms this isn't this isn't something that requires any claim construction of a plain language of the patent claim those magnetic cores being elements of the two differentiated groups the elements of each group have a potential voltage and the experts all agreed that if you have a transformer you cannot have voltage on the magnetic core of the magnetic core in theory is supposed to remain zero voltage but what this patent claims and what to get i believe is figure two of the patent shows is voltage on the magnetic core and there's no dispute among the experts there's no dispute anywhere that a magnetic core with voltage after potential in other words the same as the up of the voltage levels on those magnetic element there's a magnetic field of flux that flows through the core and it flows through the core because it's a complete loop and it has different portions everybody knows that and the patent makes clear if this is a transformer and it's made of conventional elements arranged in a particular way i agree with your honor in theory but as the cases of this  conclusion your honor i understand that that is this court is referred to that as not not of axiom of first resort but if the claim language is clear which this claim language is because this claim language very carefully distinguishes out the components of the claimed invention that are voltage elements and that last line of the claim it says so that an equal distance from zero voltage level that elements  because the pattern came out of spain i don't know i'm just telling you that if you read the claim exactly as written the talking about the elements of the two differentiated groups and says the elements which includes the magnetic core must have ek with the central voltage so your honor i agree with you in theory but i think the cases from the courts say you can't rewrite the claim language especially here where there are several instances throughout the claim where the claim does carefully distinguish between something that it calls an elements and something that it calls a voltage moment so we don't have a this is clearly this is a lot of clarity in specification is difficult at best but well i just find it difficult to say that the claims can't be read and wouldn't be read by on which is rewriting the language of the claim to preserve i don't think you have to rewrite anything because a claim can be writ in the understood in a way that of the magnetic core or they say it could mean the entire core itself normally back up all the experts agree that the common parlance for referring to a magnetic core is a magnetic core is a continuum as your honor alluded to so that the flux can return that experts agree that the vertical parts that are typically vertical that have the windings around those are referred to as legs of the core or what i call core legs in the brief and the part that goes across the top is what is referred to as a yoke that connects the two legs so you have a magnetic core made up of core we actually meant the core leg we didn't really mean an entire magnetic core even though the claim says magnetic core we met and what they told the district court repeatedly was when we said magnetic core we didn't really mean a magnetic core we meant a leg of a magnetic core and the problem with that interpretation is that it's inconsistent with the specification and several respects first of all in the background of the invention column to the patent the inventor identifies a prior art device as having core legs which is the same thing that said a call says you should interpret magnetic horse to mean but then after identifying the prior art device as having core legs that applicant then goes on to claim not core legs but magnetic cores so there's a difference there and as this court held in the p s c computer case i knowledge has a slightly different context but i think the rationale the same for that one arose under the doctrine of equivalence but under the p s p computer case if an applicant identifies some prior art device but then does not claim and claim something different then the applicant is deemed to have dedicated to the claims he specifically claimed metallic clips and tried to recapture the plastic clips that had been identified as under the doctrine of equivalence and this court said no you can't do that because you've identified that as being out there but then you didn't claim it you claim something different and the same rationale applies with this case is that they identified prior art as including court legs then they came to the district court and they said well our claim says magnetic core but really that means core legs and under the p s c computers case they should be allowed to do that because the end of the inventor has acknowledged a distinction between core legs and magnetic cores the other thing in the  one magnetic cork to mean just the leg and they say oh it just means that part this wound is that one limited part that's wound but if you look at figure one of the patents it identifies what are called seven and seven prime and you see there's a line that's pointing to what we would call the leg over here and there's a separate line that points to what's called the yolk so they're using in figure one of those numbers to identify the entire magnetic core of the yolks and the legs but then that may come into the court and i say we just want to we just want to limit the leg but that's inconsistent with figure one that's inconsistent with the reference to the prior art as including core legs and then claiming magnetic force so the question here is clear that they distinguish prayer as including core legs and then claimed that that of course because if you look at the figures shown in six pages sixteen to eighteen of our brief they show very clearly that all of these elements on the positive and the negative side reside in a single chamber not two insulated chambers there is in those drawings shown in the accused product shown a dividing wall but that wall allows all kinds of space above below and around all essentially this is one chamber not two different chambers and that's what the important disclaimer was in the prosecution history prosecution history said they piece two different chambers the ordinary meaning of chamber requires something to be enclosed and obviously if these two enclosures have to be different they cannot open up to one judgment the court didn't find that it did because the course supposedly have an equal potential or carry potential the court rightfully ignore their argument it's an absurdity  and exactly how claims are not to be read to find something which is directly contrary to the specification but most important i'm going to direct the court's attention i don't have time to go through it in detail but page f brief has a breakdown of the claim which shows this claim is a willing down there are the transformer elements certain of those are differentiated into groups of those certain comprised of voltage elements the latter part of the claim in this must be read in context unlike defendants what to do the latter part of the claim is all dealing with the voltage elements and it says that the voltage elements are in a part the positive and negative voltage elements are arranged in an equal potential arrangement so that those elements the elements of it so if it's not as counsel is trying to have the skirt and trying to have the district court reference that the latter part elements of each group in the last part of the claim should refer to the transformer element at the top it must be read in context as this court has said press in the judgment you're correct in that the claim construction which is proffered by defendants in saying that the court must have equal attention gradient is in fact something that is contrary to what one skilled in new york would would understand in rings and most importantly i think if we look at cases like marine power it's directly contrary to how this court as claims must be read you don't read in absurdity with regard about why he himself used corps as identifying just a segment of a full corps ring and a patent application filed around the same time commensurate with the present path and he said well that's a leg it's a segment so that did appear in our brief associates positive one associate with the negative components it's shown is seven and seven prime thankfully we have the numbers in the client to direct this to that but the distinction regarding the