legal errors that the district court had in two separate summary judgment rulings i would guess first the two nine one error which is reading in extraneous limitations into the claims of that patent the district court construed th claim term disks as just that before being a fixed joint or connected exist separately as individuals physically distinctives centrally the district for saying that the phrase lexicography in this case and there was no disclaimer in this case of a device that was the did not have discs that did that originally had separate individual is a structure claim and it seems that this  reading in a process but it does say first and second discount how do we deal with that well of a device and this device in particular has a button type design so whether it's it's a complete device as shown in figure three and it sits on each side of the defect that the nature of the device so to describe it to the public to the so you're saying that the first and second disk can be seen as features of and a fix should not be given especially in this context where there is no disclaimer the most natural possible meaning of a fix which it includes definitely agree with your honor that i think it can include taking two things a hinge and a door and fixing them to each other i understand that but it doesn't exclude having two members of generator said to two deaths of the same device being a fixed and i think the key teaching of the pattern here is that all we were trying to show the those of ordinary skills was in the same thing that they can all be in the same material it doesn't have to start out separately the key thing is that that not come apart during deployment or god forbid in the heart of all the hard feelings so in other words detached so that it one sixteen this is not talking about the just in particular but i really think it's an illustrated if you look count six this talk about the loops of the frames line a line twenty four to twenty six your honor their form to function as tensions springs biasing the legs to which they are attached outwardly into the position shown in figures three and four and when you course when you go back and look at three and four twenty six is the leg twenty eight is the tension spring it's all part of the exact same wire well let them help them both is what it shows but shows it right using these words in their ordinary meanings you can have both things that started out as separate and think they were part of the same structure and the patentee was not trying to distinguish the invention at any time from a device they didn't have just that started out separate and physically stings and of course there's no  arguing that the court didn't find any disavow here below him and have contrasting this with us a line that i read in the honeywell decision from the circuit saying that if the specifications could talk it would say don't x and that's a that's a clear ways of finding that patty has said i am not claiming in this case i'm not claiming just started out separate here we don't have that the specification does not say don't start out with something that is not two separate divs that they were physically distant and the district court in our band of mind went off to phil's track when he started to as i think maybe it is  twenty five seventy one during the during the arguments made the family feud analogy which is totally inappropriate what we do when we do claim construction is we look at the fact that the ordinary meaning of the words one of ordinary skill in the separate and again as i was saying we read that we read the words in their ordinary sense in the claims in the context of the claims and we read them from the context of someone of ordinary skill in the art and here people of ordinary skill understand that joined connected connecting waste they said that to the f d a they say to their investors they say in their technical documents so a j understand the ordinary meaning of these words too they should have been the limitation should have been imported into that tonight one patent claims as the implication that eventually it did lead to the two to seventeen s in the history of the two seventeen but but i guess my problem is that the two seventeen in the two waiting ones had used different terminology to point out that it is being exact same language the exact same words but in this case in fact we do have the exact same order and here's why the two eighty one the term that we're concerned about has a limitation self expanding structure and that it has two functions associated with it the district court construed that is means post function and said here is a supporting structures for that self expanding structure one a frame carried around the periphery and to the super elastic membrane a j is not trying to say that it's king preferences that it's relying on are the equivalent of the super elastic membrane so we don't have to worry about that what they're saying is the king and last radio umbrella is the equivalent to the peripheral phrasing which is the other one twelve six structure that the court found so we do have a we do have identity between what was being disclaimed before about king a lot the radio umbrella i'm a phone what what what's the similar claim language in the shown in fig three and four and that was what was at issue before the examiner then there was the added language that was the language of the examiner said as found in king unlock yes let me if i may from it this is a sixty to thirty patty said no and now i'm at least sixty two forty four now can use a pair of the equivalent structure yes in this supposedly means plus function why is the radial arm and that was the subject matter that's  g the two seven pm prosecution that's not the question that's right that's exactly right and so the kid can lock or displaying that then you can whether it's for infringement purposes or anticipation purposes go back later and recapture the disclaim subject the rest of the patent the court on the left found that the same claim was both anticipated and indefinite and that just can't be a moreover the patent claim is not indefinite for totally holding is a is another function served by the self expanding structure the claim of the structure the twenty one claims though maybe not grammatically perfectly correct as the district court seems to think the standard was is readily understandable the court understood it the first time to construe it the is bound by what they actually chose to call you and their invention not what hindsight they may have wished they could claim as their invention when they claimed a structure they didn't claim a process of combining chance we have pretty strong indications in our law that you don't construe a claim to read out of the preferred embodiment which is depicted right there in figure three right but we're process claim of sawing things it was a structure claim and and we're worrying about this a fixed language but it's notably placed in a state  being it's being fixed which makes it a structure describing a single unitary element with two features let me start with this fish require a process because a fixed is simply something a we how you really into being but you get you've got to start with what being a fixed and if you if you start with the premise and i believe judge dyke  was going on this road that the word affixed is never used to talk about different parts of an interview or all structure then just adding the word the what you're when you say something is being a fix you're  way contrary to their ordinary meaning certainly humanity can do that as a matter of their own lexicography but that didn't happen here when you go to the specification you want to stay in with their talking about they use the word affix in accordance with  ordinary meaning they talk about taking the two discs and affixing them together and they go on and they describe how they can be affixed they can be fixed by sewing they can be affixed like binding they can be fixed by adhe but every one of those examples are all consistent with what we know though is that word means which is that you gotta start with two separate things and bring them together so it was certainly there are cases where there have been connected in joint in this case are no different now the university does point out correctly that in the abstract two of these words that connected a joint are sometimes words that are thing i just i just picked out one sentence the instant closure device includes the first and second desk is that telling us it's a single device with a first and a second disk as features but then it goes on to the very remainder of that same sense to say which are attached to one another you have they are attached if you're attached to each other to them oh i agree but idea and it's irrelevant how they got attached whether they're done with plastic like this or with metal like in the glasses judge but my guess is where the point is would you describe take your glasses and if you take the the front part of the fritz would you say the left hand of the of the front side of the frames of your glasses is affixed to the other hand i certainly wouldn't use those words i thought i would say they are very satisfactory what they are and if i break them which take to all the time there are a fixed anymore i'd say all i can do is disagree with the on that your honor i think that those words and again when you look at this specification as a whole there is never describe you just don't put process claim interpretation this court ultimately concluded that no in the context of this patent we say you have to have out of body and attempt that is talking about two separate structures that need to be brought together and did not redone the internal structure that the patent d n a case so again you know we don't read in process limitations but if you choose to claim your invention in a way that you did in terms of the intrinsic gavin's you  what does the word integral to me well that excludes a product that is made by a in a particular way i wouldn't call that a product a process claim but it still is a word that  does the work on the joint joint happen in case you know crying or separation i do that word is just another example of all the other terms we have in this case and again when you look at it in the context of this patt could to the briefly to the two eighty one part of the two eighty one and the claim construction issue that the judge actually ruled against a j on but we believe the judge should have also construed the phrase in communication with context like that claim because the ordinary b makes no sense you know we see the words in communication with a patent cases and in particularly mechanical cases where you see in communication it's positive about a connection where there are spaces open to one another between two things that's a common read but that meaning makes no sense in the context of a patent the patent doesn't disclose act so if you did what the judge originally when instead of sticking to the intrinsic evidence it started looking broadly for different examples of into indication of the electronics art for example and saying well i'm going to try to find something that i could reconcile all  the patent doesn't say that the patent never says you know that that part of this invention is transmitted movement from one day to the other and before you write it would be important to me press the anticipation issue  frame the the inventor testified that for the purpose of that specific function there was no difference something which kings radio alarm simply do not do now can you make that more clear they were talking about a well first let me clarify what what part i'm reading right out of the in the universities a disclaimer here so this is from the claim one now there's no dispute that that is in fact different than what shown in caring so that statement that you read is politically correct we are now claiming something that is different from what shown in kidding but three applications later so the radial frame is being clearly just going to know the radial frame is really being said we're claiming something different in this application we're not claiming a radial for a minute so it's different but it happens all the time that subsequent prosecutions you change your claims the university made this is a clear indication that they were trying to broaden in fact in the intermediate to ninety one application they removed the frame altogether that the team's regular frame is different in relation to how it causes the device to open you know the pattern of criticising the radio frames for other reasons but for one twelve six against your argument first they said they disclaim it in the earlier prosecution history and then they nailed it again in their in their patents this court because it is certainly not said that every time you criticize a piece of progress that is thereby  criticism of the radio france and what the panel says for example in content is that the radio frames are bad for once the device is installed in the heartbeat of those radio arms flex a lot with the harder they might have to break over time that that baby girl is assuming it's true that's still a criticism of a radio frame that has nothing to do with the function claimed they claimed a self expanding structure for moving the do buys from the compressor reteaching to an expanded orientation so they weren't talking about the disadvantages that happened in the heart there are really claiming a structure for expanding and again the inventor it admitted that for that particular function there was no difference between a radial frame and a circumferential so that is in the heart of why there is no disclaimer here is because we are dealing with different plain language and claim language that focus thank you your honors i had a somewhat of a disadvantage because i don't have a copy of the densely case that was mentioned by a g eight but my recollection is that that case was in fact involving a claim that was a job since our claim went where it ever is actually claiming a process of manufacture that's a densely was about so i just want to point out i agree with judge rader that if we at the university went out and there was someone else making a radio style seems to me what you're saying is because under different clean language they did clean this prior or that somehow carries over because of the means plus function names and that the fun while the function is broadly stated that somehow you have to limit the equivalence of not including the priority just because earlier it's the same plain language because what was at issue in the earlier application was a a frame carried around the periphery overcalling the peripheral frames that's what we were distinguishing in the prosecution history from the radial hub and spoke and now we where is that construed to be the same because it relies upon the exact same structure i don't understand the court said there could be two supporting structures to two structures that would support them the function of being claimed the preferred frame and a super elastic i agree with the court but what i'm saying that is in this case it's not broader plain language and it's not different plain language it's the exact same structure it's the radio hub and spoke in burlington on the morning which isn't as it's been construed by the district court it is the same claim language absolutely it absolutely is and i would be i would also point to the ballard case which is in our brief blue brief that a page thirty seven where the display will slide to the similar structure to exact same structures in an earlier means plus function claims and