different path for the waiting strategy let me ask you about the the new claim nine so you are you i understand that everyone is in agreement thanks to the new claim by twenty is does require adjustability correct and when you say that the district court said that the original claim ninth wasn't adjustable didn't exist a court simply say it didn't require adjustability it said that the claim there or there are a few sections let me let me highlight a few of them for you one of one of the sections we rely on is appendix two forty one column three beginning at line ten in one of the golf club head modified with a hollow interior and having a selectable point access x are distributed manual on naaman your weight which may be inserted or moves just particular preferences needs and waves so before your shot you will take your weight you will put it wherever you want to put it you will you know with a snap on or clip on weights then take your shot if you're happy with your shot you know you can stay with that if the next time it the next you could have waited clubs that a manufacturer for paris and and the the golfer themselves can't afterward adjust it right i assume you could yes i mean i think that  i mean you have a little bit of a problem here i'm not sure why there was no argument on this but you've got a claim differentiation problem when original claim nine incorporated original claim one right and then dependent from claim one are claims two three four five and claims two three four all the way up to six require golfer replaceable elements so if the dependent claim requires the golfer replaceable element then why should we conclude that the independent claim already had that requirement because the only reason is because that's the only thing that's that's disclosed in specification so if there's any type of ambiguity if there's any type of question as to you know what does perhaps this is ambiguous you go back to the specification and there's nothing in the specification that would we should ignore claims that say things like the method as were cited in claim one in which said waiting means comprises golfer replaceable elements and that's a very distinct dependent plane is it not which primary reading from your i'm looking at claim three claim for perhaps but again we just rely on philips which says that basically that you cannot you cannot construe the claims to claim anything that isn't the invention described and in the second part of the case i guess ed let me do it this way by asking if you had using your three by three by three matrix if you had fixed the x and you moved the y club to make the adjustments are the wait inside the no cavity no you have the weight you have the you carry the weight the weights are separate and then you will cli  that's the invention so it's the the matrix the volumetric major you have your club head and you have inside the club head you might have a cap like clips or hooks and then the weight would enter various korten it's but that how you touch it is either a snap on or clip on there may be other ways it's not limited to those ways perhaps perhaps there is a more effective way like you know  using it or you are going to have a golf club that were in the manufacture manufacture of the club to have either stick in wall i think that's exactly correct why didn't you make it in hindsight we should have made it we thought the claim language was so clear that it we didn't need to go to the claim differentiation argument there's nothing in claim nine that would  to believe that it requires the way needs to be judged by a judge that it if you've got a written description that at talks about only adjustable mechanisms then then you could leave that into the the plain language could you not mean i don't think the figures fourteen and fifteen which show weight and don't appear to add the ability for a golfer to adjust and there's no discussion in the patent specification whatsoever of how they're attached the club i think th that don't actually disclose the weights or movable and two in the specification in the summary of the invention at eighty two forty one column three it talks about the weights could be and i think in level or added you know if if you were a manufacturer who put weights in here and they were fixed i could see you arguing that in fact all of these let all this language that talks about the object of the that would suggest that it has to be going from low why the high why i see and therefore it can't depart from that path by going having any decreasing  take a straight line or it's a direct path between to there and back there's nothing in this application actually define what that means and their argument rely on an interpretation in which the waves are let me stop you right there if i could be i give an example of something that would be a decreasing y with increasing z and it would result in having the same effect on the backspin as going from low while o c to high why hi two cities is las vegas between them but dallas is then i think we were saying basically that lane which means just anywhere within a club that they may have meant something else but they didn't used cla damnations which they did i don't i'm not sure that adds a limitation and just gives you context of where the waiting occasions with the i don't understand how the three by three by three matrix works in the real world the presumably you can if you have these little cubes of space abstract cubes presumably you could have you could move away some degree but between one place and another within this matrix and it wouldn't leave one of the the little cubes or it could move from somewhere close to the line between two of them and move up a little what's what does that one two three contribute we're not suggesting that there can only be one location for the weight in each of the little cubes are we in i shall i guess is what we feel i think plaine they can't be because of these pictures if they do nothing else they show us things that are not the same size and shape and location as the cells and that's exactly correct i think they show a horseshoe they show a triangle and they sho thing and and there are their interpretation also requires that really needs to fit entirely within the south and that it couldn't couldn't overlap or span multiple coordinates and both their body image show otherwise in the try to clarify is that appellee tries to say that this is a particular direction you have to be increasing the z x as you don't have to be increasing the yakkers because that language would say in which the  increasing that's not a limitation that we have it's not you don't have to increase the c x of reactors could be decreasing the language says in which an increase in the c access does not correspond to a decrease in the so in other words if you are increasing your z x and the y axis must stay constant or increased it cannot decrease you can absolutely go the other way you're not limited to that one direction that one eight line seventeen to nineteen in order for the golf club head to be stable it is also important that the masses on either side of the center of the striking surface i had this thought is approximately equal in othe that the teaching of damon was that as the z axis increases the y axis should decrease because you want that stability and so it was it was brought to the attention of the examiner that it would be helpful you know like that that art this teaches away from the strategy