applications via a meeting a portion of that sentence are of my peers to me to be suggesting eventually is really about the particles rather than their using as p d s in particular the remainder part of that sentence in another part of the brief because there were different issues that were raised different arguments that were made and so they were taken in proper order are three times in the in the body of these specifications of where the present invention is to find the first and and most look i'm sorry the most relevant part of the definition of the present invention is under the summary of the invention in column three beginning at lines fifty one through sixty seven where the two instances of the present invention is made including the fact that your honor has pointed to it states in fact that the present invention relates in general to particles in the liquid suspending medium that's the first science if you stop there at this point this is a generic statement that applies to both the peaveys and the species now the second sentence goes on to describe a particular implementation or species with and genus which is a which is an s t d and then states that white valves of the type describe called background of the invention if one goes to the summary of the invention then we're no longer firm as these were referring to electoral optical that's what they that's where the invention was developed that's where they intended to use however the inventor and everyone else and apparently in the field also yes the court finds fruit life valve as one no no no you have to say yes so asserts that the argument of claim differentiation is irrelevant because it's based on yes yes you're right it's the really plain differentiation is not was not the primary so we can't know yes you can ignore it five but i will say that the if you took the extracting or importing a particular in body in this case taking the moring the generic generality of the description of the invention which is a thank you honestly may please the court the one hundred five patent is notable both through what it consistently conveys throughout about s p d and let me let me start with a certain housekeeping kind of question if we agree with analysis for just the first plane term and then you can essentially consolidate your analysis and the reason i say that you know honor is that essentially this is a nested technology so we have a diagram on page nine of our read brief that shows this you have in the primary embodiment the droplets of light valid suspension that's the life out suspension there imbedded in that environment within a film ok and that film is the light modulating unit comprising the suspension and then that film is sandwiched between two walls with electrodes and collectively that device is called the light bulb so the light modulating the excuse me the part that's actually doing the work of course is the droplets of the suspension with the particles align and engage in brownian movement so the light modulating unit comprising the suspension is simply the film that holds those droplets in place and for that reason the claim construction exercise is fairly similar between the two  one of the related patents was defined differently than how late modulating unit was defined in the pattern that we're looking at on appeal can you explain why there's a difference i mean i realize there's different scripts for creations at two different patents but it's just a little bit odd that you have one interpretation and it's broad and one interpretation that's reading in the brownian movement i think what you're on it might be referring to is using a suspension of her cross and so what i'm asking about is why is that interpretation how do you square that interpretation of that term with the interpretation from the suspension piece of it now whether i'm not sure that not necessarily made a lot of sense but the judge nevertheless came to the same conclusion when it when considering the proper construction of the term that included the suspension i think that's right because of the definition in column one of the patent that your honor was asking about explains exactly what the light valve suspension is and how it works now in this pattern when you have the light modeling unit comprising the suspension again these  terms so a question arises as to what it means to modulator light and that term which is also used predominantly in column one refers to controlling much of the transmission of the light but i think the reason that the district judge is in most respects very similar is in the four nine one patent it's a much more extensive specification because that patent teaches it contains extensive teachings about how you make the film and there are numerous working examples that describe magistrate judge burke said as opinion how in every working example the film or the light modulating you know it controls the light transmission and how the particles of the suspension randomize and orient to either block the light the suspension as i said before is part of the light modulating in it which is part of the light bulb which is that the s p d and you see from start to finish that the patent describes the invention as an s p v with these particular particles the title is s p valves with those particles the field of the invention is s p d light valves that use those particles the detail description starts with the first that in saying that the invention is the discovery that you can use these particles in an either it's like two pieces of glass with liquid filling between them or you have a film with these droplets and both of those it goes on in the very next sentence to describe that the liquid suspension whether it's a uniform suspension between the plates of glass or the film with the droplets it operates in exactly the same way so i agree with your honor judge so that it's not an expressed definition of light modulating unit but the description in column one of a light modulating unit which misleading and i want to know why you think it was well the issue i have there is so now we're in column two almost right across the place in column one and it says the term liquid light off suspension means as noted above and that it has this very generic statement that basically just says any kind of suspension right and the point is that that that's it's really just the meaning it changes the meaning that's the sentence that are if i would like to focus the court on and my point pfizer's ition is i think the phrase that they used in the brief was that there's a hard stop at the period you know after the first sentence of the liquid suspension is just particles in a liquid period and then the very next sentence using verizon case that we cited in the brief there was a statement of the president vention that described the gateway and for sentences down using the definite article it said the gateway does compression and decompression and the court concluded based on that that the articulation of the present invention included the functionality that actually it was four sentences down not the very next sentence right explained exactly how the present invention worked here we have a seeming definition now suppose it was a comma rather than a period ok the point is that it immediately follows explaining what these articles do otherwise it doesn't tell you anything about whether the lights out suspension is that suspension would describe every sir i would very briefly like to address we've talked a bit about the president mentioned just the consistency of the disclosure as well which is another one of the canons that that we think is highly relevant but if you look at this pattern it's basically there's no distinction here nor is one ever been argued so when it talks about a suspension in claim one that's exactly what it's talking about two and three very closely parallel the disclosure at the top of palm for as well as in column one about these two embodiments the liquid about the what they call the purely liquid embodiment which we call the pool versus the film with the embedded droplets of light out suspensions and claims two and three although perhaps not drafted as clearly as they could have been who didn't use the word purely purely li i don't recall making a written description argument as part of the claim destruction process it's just kind of yes i don't know all that and i mean it sounds as if i mean the trouble i'm having is that ordinarily you know there's that's expressing defined one might think that we shouldn't be reading and that special definition from the specification where there is a broader virtue of the lines so how do you respond to that sure so here i mean first of all they're very focused on the selector optical device understood to be relegated to the express definition and claimed in column one sorry for saying claim i hope you're following me yes ok so i think there is a combination of at least three canons of claim constructions not just one one is that the suspension is clearly defined in claymont of both judge burton judge starr found to is that as i was starting to say before the description of this invention is consistent throughout every embodiment if you want to call them that or every aspect of the description both in this patent and in all of the incorporated by reference patents involve exactly the same functionality that you have particles that go into brownian movement and align to either block or light through and three there's a consistent use of the phrase the president vention there are three examples of that one in the field of the invention one in the detail description of the invention and one in the middle column two when it says the liquid lights out suspension is useful in the present invention man clu and then it lists the two are five patents that are incorporated by reference both of which of course because this is the only technology they're dealing with function exactly that way so there's a uniformity of disclosure the uniformity of description of the president vention this pattern and these claims they mean the same thing in column one tells you that it says the liquid suspension predecease sometimes referred to as a liquid light bulb suspension or simply a light fell off french it's using the term it actually defines it so that you know when you see the word suspension it's not ice t we're talking about a lightbulb suspension where every see the word suspension the patent tells you that right in column one line twenty s know there was an initial question about the four ninety one partner and counsel suggested that the scription of the patent is very similar which justified the district court and relying on the specifications and prosecution history of the four ninety one patent cost of the one eighty five in fact the four ninety one is is essentially irrelevant  except to the extent it was cited in the patent the four ninety one patent is by and entirely different inventor so we have total different entities the four ninety one patent was filed at a different time than the one eighty the to be sure that it is somehow muddied language in the specifications in terms of references to the present invention and you deleted the words as noted above and what opposing counsel is saying that by doing that you're taking a general description which follows and making it look like that the description was it's not and you need to address and i should think for your own credibility you know honor each and every argument regarding as these was addressed and the breach there was one time yes where we said for use in the s b these we are where we separated out into a different argument but we addressed every single word of every one of those languages but we were focusing first position is and remains that the present invention is in general directed to particles capable of reflecting heat except for the words but the invention is an electro optical device comprising of the fine particles and all the descriptions in the client's fault of the scription in the summary of the invention  mislead i thought we just honestly addressed a very simple issue a fight coming back i think there is yes somebody is language when we mean in  terms of the s p these again if you have a generic description and in fact for example we discuss and said yes but that language like modulating unit specifically includes e p these so experts and the art people who have ordinary skill in the ar liquid suspending media that is the definition of the product but the vice what have what the patent describes later in that section is what happens if voltage notice function and if the patent is on clay or if it's a fifty fifty case well it doesn't our case law suggests that the patent owner is going to bear the burden your honor i don't think it's a question of burden because it's a question of law and there is either a right or wrong answer the in this case they look at the and as in every case the issue is what is the well the the p three a b is first required to interpret claims in a reasonable way in accordance with how a person skilled than the art would read the