construction of a single word common to each of these terms the word fuel which the district court construed to be limited to a quote fuel that number one contains an anti knock agent that is not gasoline and number two is different from the fuel used for court injection both of these limitations on errors are wrong for at least two reasons st each claim each term uses the exact same word fuel and there  the plan in ordinary meaning of the word fuel includes gasoline there's also no dispute that the specification specifically identifies gasoline as an exemplary fuel nd are justified what's your response to your friend on the other side who says said that the world fuel isn't really what we should be looking at we should be looking at the full claim term which is the phrase at issue fuel that is directly injected yes judge  fuel that contains an anti not agent that is not gasoline and that is different from the fuel used for port injection flash in the nd feelings as well right he said the term fuel in this limitation so he was talking about the broader phrase as as that limitation right absolutely honor and certainly we don't object and we have never disputed the fact that the word fuel d is as limited to these particular as a particular phrases the core point from our perspective ju o'malley is that if the same word the word fuel then both the port fuel injection term and the direct fuel injection terms and this court has been very clear that and for example the digital biometrics case the same word appearing in the same claim should be interpreted consistently  and also point out your honor that the specification makes very clear that gasoline is the fuel point to the fact that the specifications specifically identified gasoline direct injection as a potential embodiment so we think that it's very clear equivalent to a five octane number decrease in the engines requirements so does amount to answer your question very specifically these are the environments that we point to that in our opinion very clearly disclose the direct injection of gasoline your judge clemens you're breaking out can you hear me try that and hear me must really assume that the st part of the claims instruction is correct what's wrong with the nd half could make it any clearer it shows that the patents not only permit the same fuel or granted a fuel mixture to be used in each feeling system but that some claims the claim twenty one for example specifically requires it important could we back up just a moment and look at the specification which in column one talks about a more traditional gasoline alcohol mix that you find at the filling station and it contrasts this in invention with that and and says that the effort here is to minimize the amount of ethanol and other anti knock agent and it talks elsewhere about using two to feel tanks one for ethanol or national gasoline mix and the other one for gasoline invention but the language your honor cited specifically states you know and objects one of the objects of the president mention is to minimize the amount of ethanol and to knock agent that is used certainly our arguments and our position is that the courts district courts st limitation is directly inconsistent with that requirement turning a bit further on its appendix five hundred and seventy seven the next to the invention statement state in one aspect the invention of the fuel management system does include specific identifications of gasoline only direct injection volume and is there is there any place in the specification where it shows dual injection site and the use of a having a hard time following your references to where i read it in the past i apologize are i'll do my best to relate the pages to the columns in the specification i believe  and seventy five and following and then there are various specifications in various patents minor standing laws that the specifications in the printed patents are not identical correct g r and they are not identical only to the extent that each one references its sort of evolving place in the continuation line but once you get to the actual what i would call the meat of the specification  through sixty four describes and bottom and as quote gasoline direct injection prend d d i close corrent and we think that's a clear indication that this is a gasoline only direct injection method i'd also note your honor that to the extent that the patent does contemplate a mixture of fuel it consistently uses the term mix or mixture those words are planning absent from this description here and so it's it's clear to us and we believe that's not entirely true phillips case makes clear that you look to the specification which is the most reliable thing to interpret the claims you don't have to find a disclaimer to and use the specification to of restriction or disclaimer in the patent language and about a disclaimer as opposed to interpret in the claim terms as potus using the wrong terminology i don't and i certainly do not disagree with trying to do is to ask you to help us with the specification to show where it supports your interpretation of these claim terms as opposed to district court sure you are understood and  to wrap it up with respect to the different rules requirements of the nd limitation to provide drivers with specific references again there's no dispute here ford is never disputed that the specification disclose and fifty six where it states that it is also possible to use direct injection of gasoline as well as direct injection of ethanol that indicates that in the direct injection there there must be both both gasoline in the if you look at another one of the examples that is cited which is well before both here to the so called common specification appendix five hundred and seventy nine in the same language is in appendix sixty three in the eight hundred and thirty nine patent it describes in the case of ethanol direct injection and it goes on to describe direct injection of ethanol and then it explains that here the that specifies the peals must be different or port injection as opposed to direct injection i don't like to claim language by itself says that i mean a claim language doesn't a case that you have a fuel and the fuel can be different i mean claim twenty one for example of the a twenty six patent that opposing counsel cited in the case you can have a fuel in the direct injection and a fuel in the port injection they can be different your honor and that's consistent with all of these claims specification your honor and see what's described in the specification as the fuel for the direct injection in the fuel for the port injection and every example in the specification for the direct injection figures for example your honor i'd look at the figure want of the text in the specification that relates to figure one and there you see that there's two tanks right there's an ethanol tank for direct injection there's a gasoline tank for port injection ratio of fuel that is directly injected to fuel that is poured injected increases what does that mean well that's consistent with with i think figure two in the specification that describes it as the torque changes that the amount of fuel that is directly injected  are and that's that's consistent with the judge's claim construction and of going to arms of this is you just can't read this patent specification as indicating anything other than a system that uses ethanol or another and i cajun that's different from the port injected fuel to improve the engine performance these inventors didn't invent gas direct injection that was known these inventors didn't invent the idea of mixing at the refinery the ethanol and the gasoline and just injecting that into the engine that was no nest explained to be as such in the background they disclose something much more specific which is the direct injection of the ana knocking agent and it's different from the fuel in the port injection and that's consistent with every single example in the specification in the smoke and mirrors of looking to snippets or excerpts out of context to make reference to gas direct injection doesn't change that understanding because they refer to to the prior art in multiple  federal circuit well i would just say that what's happening here is there was an invention that was disclosed with the original applications in two thousand and four and it resulted in continuation practice that extended for many years the claims that are in these patents at issue were st presented in two thousand and eleven and e b s that's all boosting is trying to stretch through these belatedly introduce terms their invention of a dual fuel engine to attempt to cover single fuel engines like those that ford makes that e d s simply didn't invent and that's why it's proper to look in accordance with the federal circuit longstanding authority trustees of columbia philips and others to look at the specification st start with a clean language it's clear that the judge here started with the proper claim language he started with the claim start with the claim time directly injected fuel and variations of that and then he went to the patent specifications and determined what is fuel or what is directly injected fuel mean in these patent claims and he said that he looked at the full specification it's clear from the discussion  the hearing that he looked at the full specification he actually asked questions or made references to portions from the beginning to the end of the specifications so he considered the whole thing and he properly considered injection they use a single fuel they use only gasoline you go to the pump you fill up the your your pickup truck or your car with whatever fuel is there and that is the fuel that's used there's no separate tanks there's no separation of ethanol from and that's that's a reason why these patents can't cover that because that much is in the prior art and they didn't disclose merely using the patent applicants here didn't disclose a system that merely uses  tank to feed both port injection and direct injection with the same fuel look at examples of figure one and figure five they disclose something much more narrow than that and it's the past specification they would have this court and they would have had the district court look merely to the term fuel in isolation and determine that that means any kind of fuel regardless of how it's being used regardless of what the specification if there's any doubt about that the patent specification also tells us that ethanol is a fuel well that would collide entirely with what the exact the inventor cone told the patent office was the present technology that distinguished the prior art crowd to reference on the basis that it was designed to operate on one hundred percent ethanol that can't be the case it can't be that plain an ordinary meaning would apply and conflict with the distinction of the crowds reference and would lead to this absurd reading of the patents that would be divorced from what's explained where you have a different fuel in the direct injection crystal clear that that requires the same single fuel or the same fuel mixture to be injected by bolt techniques and finally your honour's with respect to the prosecution history my friend references the prosecution history of a different path the original application that original application expressly required there to be both a fuel and a separate anti knock agent that was directly injected it is in that context that the references in the statement that dr con