here yet ok alone if there are need to address in your view any of the other issues unfortunately there is your other because some of those other claim construction issues address earlier features of the truck or motor p serious it was a separate feature of the portable computer system that claim there was imported from the specification the district court in fact did not find that there was a clear and unmistakable redefinition of the definition of the term according to the court's precedents we're not supposed to change a rewrite the claim is part of that review of the of the case in the specification the first and second ramp sections are disposed of by reference to ram sections twenty six and twenty eight we have cited to a portion of the specification in our blue brief that the district court did not acknowledge or address that described grant sections twenty six and twenty eight pivoting away from the lame support  are referenced to sections of the ramp system that catch excess material and pick up to through that material off of those around him sections this was an independent inventive aspect that was addressed to claim sports prior decisions made clear that not every aspect of a disclosed apparatus needs to be claimed claim to be directed toward one aspect was specially if it has utility separate apart from the other disclosed aspects and iran and it seemed at first that your argument was pretty strong with then every time you refer to this in the specification and you and you refer to language and the claim you also refer to three sides of the partial four and then you distinguish between the you shape side which is three i think and a c shape side which is the partial fourth so haven't you defined that and given that up in your specification clue the part that is pointed to later in our  part of the specification that doesn't it refers to lead to the broader concept of eventually i'll side of the context of the specific sure but i get that if there was only one time where you times where you talked about this channel opening being three sides and a partial four side that may be examples or certain body meant but almost every single time you talk about this and then you also distinguish between a c n n u shape when you're to live it i don't think that that does that there is a broader disclosure effect of champions a broader concept of channel beams that are arranged with precision outside of the interior space between the two beams to create this opening that allows the upper support analysis so that this court would have a factual context in which to review this claim construction rulings and a better understanding of how the courts review of those rulings would impact the infringement analysis in particular this court asked the district court to look at two issues whether the messiah but used in letters can you just get to the channel beings argument because that's what i find the most difficult when i'm reading the claims which were supposed to start with i don't see a lot of stuff that  they have to ask to be partially surrounded on the far side it talks about having a generally speech see shape and the like and parts of it but it doesn't lessen it to mean a c shape it in this in the summary of invention and i believe i'll swear in the specification and at least once in the specification it does say that the channel beam substantially surrounds all four sides of the work as a shelf the one a one passes it talks about how there are families are configured to surround them sleep all four sides of the respective teams that they gauge with and then it goes on to talk about how you can make v any reference to a three sided beam that the invention itself talks about how you have to have this lot so that you can have the beams from the first read sections that are across various levels braces can slide in slot and likewise when you have the term elongate opening which is the slot that indicates that there is a fourth side with an opening in it so any other consist of a rectangular four sided two that is continuous with no slot and no opening anywhere and as the district court found itself evident that you can't have a structure that creates a three sided wall so what's appear here are views is that we have our four sided being and then we also have some bracing on the top and bottom of that four sided beam and that that creates a channel so i don't know what the district court would do with that if you adopted their construction of a structure that is a three sided there instead construction that any three sided structure is what piers proposed construction says a structure with three perimeter simplifying a structure with three perimeter walls that's what superior has proposed it has never proposed the construction that includes the word beam its proposed construction says a structure with three criminal walls and if they're doing that not because the specification discloses that but because they're trying to come up with a construction that would give them an argument o in the specification where it talks about the channel being being too parallel plus you have to have two parallel things so if the whole structure creates the beam then you don't have to parallel you have one structure i it just doesn't it doesn't work they've tried to be creative in coming up with was a construction that would give them an inference no they're just saying that the that the being doesn't have to have four sides or say more than that your honor they're saying it's a state they're taking beam out and saying it's any structure that has three sides three of course what about claim wind of the two three you shaped and that being different from c shaped in many ways we have argued that below we didn't read that in our brief because of of page limitations but yes we have argued that a c shaped is different th that the invention has let me get to the facts language so i'm not  seventy fifty one and the summary each channel beam is further configured to define a slot in the perimeter wall jason to the facing surfaces of the respective bea also in the specification and that's one of the things that the district court relied on in saying view in finding the partial four side because they've said that they're claimed invention in the summary which speaks not to an embod discussion in those sections as the broadest treatment of the subject matter that was discourse we pointed out that on page eighty seventy one of the one the one had called three through twenty one there's a broader discussion of the so that there is room for the upper three struts section both the beams and the process to slide with within that structure and that's the important aspect of the invention that was being played here it's a structure of a fully for the question rather than thank you very much