sure that wasn't the focus of the evidence the manual position that the commission found was when you push it on the way the programming works is the first thing in the on it mode is it runs a sweep through the through the letter remov processor code is executing but all it is doing is looking to see whether the button is pressed to move into the on mode and it does this week which is going to be a manual operation and then the program transitions t the point that's not the way it works that's not the way it works you push the button on it as a suite that was called a menu in transitions to the cat center that was called automatic and it sits there and it stays there indefinitely until you push the button again you push seven six hundred and what your stake is referring to here is it seems that nothing in the prosecution history related to claim thirty three had anything to do with the pre determined event language there was no cat exit arguments that were mean during prosecution relevant to this scope that's what our person requires to show us in the specification where it is clear and unmistakable that the pre determined event language in the claim must be narrowly limited to catch your honor at age three forty six nine to sixty two your honor it's the principle object of the present invention to provide a new so it's an object of the invention writer by a new improved dr for break or comb employed to remove litter from a cat pox a drive that is directly responsive to the exit of a cat from a litter box now it says that's an object of the invention a principle object but not the only object and nor does it imply that only cat exit would trigger the things to new right it throughout the specification it requires a limiting language of the sort to suggest that nothing other than this would be appropriate in the definition if i may respond to that your honor the memory about the poem i'm sorry for don't worry about the most certainly can be there's no reason it can't be the owner's getting off why not you distinguish between manual and automatic and manual means owner after it operated activation but it doesn't say that can only occur when the owner pushes the button and then and that's that's exactly what he's referring to in that one forty six forty nine i would submit that's what he said referring to the one fifty column one fifty two use fifty nine sixty two that's what he's seem to be assuming that manual operation has to continue to be somewhat automated but currently she doesn't explain that currently she says at column three line one thousand the president mentioned can be used in a manual fashion where the brake member is moved manually my understanding of how this works this disclosure and probably see if you're talking about you can put your hand on top of the rig number and move it manually sliding it back and forth in order to push the stuff out self at your personal whim now that certainly could be done when you were in the one one switch with the automated pre timed functionality and now would have to be done with when that was all right now i don't understand how so that you can choose between them no but forget about the combinations room the hypothetical i mean a scheme is the x construction nd i would hope that isn't the case but in that circumstance i think actually looking at the end for the commission to determine whether based on the record in this case is this the question of the law yes but you're our courts are free to decide questions of life the only thing missing from her at least the only thing i see missing if i accept your proposed claim constructions is the switch is there anything else missing because i didn't see anything art in the record shows the missing are under their claim constructions other than the being reference that was used was not for the second of all there is no evidence of any reason to combine common sense or otherwise they simply didn't put any in this case they just assumed th little box that actually works with cats the evidence in this case is on one side of that is that it was incredibly difficult to make any device to work with cats in fact there is no evidence of any device that was working introduce that wasn't first tested with cats all mr rogers when he tried to do his particular device when he first asked to do cats and had lots of different problems now litter says when switch the earth to enable the two different modes of operation well because we are we're not seeing that that well the first of all there's no reason no evidence to do a reason to do that says that human initiated therefore causes a motorized system to clean its as human initiate it so except in the lower courts construction and claim language here there's no disclosure that manual operation must be mo home so we think that the commission's interpretations was absolutely correct ok thank you