gone thank you your honor the morning of your honors and me and please the court the core issue in this appeal is serial claim construction of claim terms that require typically mounting a user support frame the district court ultimately narrowed those terms inconsistently with the patent specification to limit pivotal mounts to only those that produce movement that is generally circular  mounted relative to in pivotal the mounted on terms require user support mounted to pivot mounted to turn and places no further restrictions on the overall movement so that the court construction that deviates from the claim language significantly is too narrow in some respect but not surprisingly given the departure from the claim language does so too broad in some movement is not what determines whether or not the user support is spin that only mounted the pivot user support has to change in angular orientation there are other claim t in some but not all of the patent that are directed to the movement around that pivot axis but of course a body can move around a point even in a circle around that point without changing orientation without hitting think of the chair on a ferris wheel that moves around about the point in the middle of the ferris wheel but maintains its upright orientation what pivotal the mountain here requires is that that great orientation not be maintained but that the chair  of the claimed pivotal the claimed multiple part pivot axis having multiple pivot that that took it outside comprising claims but that's not the case kinds of movement yes but the term place is a restriction that they use or support free must pay that it doesn't say that it can't do other things that they can't also that the claims are not limited to purely circular motion or even generally circular motion that claimed him by him and that shows that for over a linkage they can accomplish a wide variety capability not all of them do importantly parent a patent does not include this discussion the patents that do when they're talking about particular figures particular configurations of the four are a link and they say this this particular figure mimics and you can also place the pivot in impossible location but when it when those patents are talking more generally about four or linkages as a type the patent say this can allow a desired pivoting movement to be achieved where a single part single so if the if there is a desire for a pivoting movement that of approximate a single physical pivot the four current linkage can accommodate that desire similarly with regard to and forty nine patent when it's talking about figure eight it says the movement of this particular configuration and figure eight approximate that of a single physical pi would accomplish but it also includes a lateral component a single fix a single physical pivot does not and we're in the claim language other kinds of motion are possible the movement around the pivot doesn't necessarily lie in the middle of the body that's pivoting and so the movement around court credits their expert testimony that pivotal motion is circular so the court got it correct always have to argue why this court should deviate from the plain ordinary meaning that you know all of us on this record agree that it requires circular motion so they're arguing why should we even from the plain ordinary way to have two reasons one of them is that in the four bar linkage according to them this isn't stated in the past words per their st reason for deviating from the plain ordinary meaning the district court credits their argument that it requires generally as per their nd argument on our q a being in only a couple of the claims they didn't even make that argument same so as to be the nd argument argue it as far as i'm concerned that argument should have been seen waivers which is what we argued however even if you reach the argument on the merits and deem it not way it's only  a little bit can you explain for me exactly the distinction between a circular as opposed to having a common sense or what the district court judge was talking about there yes  to experience relative to mainframe so if we're talking about a movement path and pivotal part of the circular movement path the reason we got to this center of rotation is because poi knows that they can't prove that tough stuff machines produce a generally circular motion that's why they stipulated not infringement so the way to get around the plain ordinary meeting  never even heard of it before but they found something in a book that talks about if you find a center of rotation for this reload method that means that we infringe even though it doesn't matter what motion it is we showed with the real  say that for example a triangle as a common center of square has a common center believe it or not if you have a straight line that has a curve and so imagine a straight line that goes for but at the very end there is an inch wanker that has a center of rotation so waist was not saying that the center of rotation applied the circular movement police was saying that any motion the path the center of rotation infringers its patents doesn't matter in this within their expert supplemental report that got stricken at pivotal movement of the form or a linkage which has multiple pivot controlling the movement of the user support graeme is not but is not