corporation versus from the district of new jersey file history that justifies altering the claims in the way that district court did in this instance and for that basic reason the district court judgment should be reversed there are two claim terms that side of the court is aware i'll talk first because i've i've got more questions that want i'm trying to understand i mean you have you have are cited in that there has to be some kind of  position and that is that they have to be juxtaposed for a particular purpose so i thought do you now agree with the district court that we can't just interpret the term juxtaposed out of context and the rest language of the kind and you and i well i understand that the district court felt that we were taking juxtapose out of context that was never our intention i do think juxtaposed needs to be taken in the context and now on appeal we have an agreement will part of the claim that you're on to refer to is that it has effectively that effect where you have to position them so that they work so there is a language concerning the positioning of the recess or the groove and the taper in the not as possible on each side but is there anywhere else in the patent anywhere else in the pat specification or not that describes another effect it is not a literal embodiment your honor but what it does describe the column seven is it talks about the actual the groove at the very tip of the taper the very end of the table then you have the longest taper possible it could be with the groove on the outside of the taper but close to it position nearby under the don't like one t you would you would have lent taper on the shell in that instance i think in all instances under the language of the patent the taper on the shell is referred to as one taper whether it's bisected or it has a groove as part of it it's still one taper and so the maximizing the abseil length is a message to the person still on the arc how you would position how you would position the groove in the taper to make sure that it's a fact and you're on i know it and i understand your point about the cardinal and i'm sure you hear that in many many cases but what i think makes this case different is that when you read essentially midway into the language in this case the only in dishes they can point to that the invention at not under the plain language of the claim they have to be positioned nearby and there's no that and that's just suppose your honor and and the claim and the parties agree that's position nearby and that's something that will be determined at a  and recess which is the groove and a secure mic taper which is the taper and they can be persistent near by each other if they are position your body you know one is right next to the other one i would submit that if they are given the language of the specification the claims as a whole if they are part of the tape are there in the tape or their position nearby and so language is present provided about the location now in the cases where a limitation is read in from the specification they are different from this case this case does not have any statement that essentially midway is the present invention there was no arc that was avoided by reference to the location of the groove along the tape or this is a case that is different it is a case where literally the only thing they can point to that limits the definition of the term up and provides an essentially midway language of the term image does provide written descriptions support for the claim so i don't think there would have been an issue at that and i think that a person of the evidence would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art is fully capable of determining what position nearby is is not the only way that one of these can work and we know that because we have we have examples from the real world where positioning of the groove along the taper is different than essentially midway and it does work so i don't i don't believe that it would have come out the way that the trial judge read it in this in this particular instance and they would resist any interpretation of the present instruction one way to sa yes i would i don't i don't believe that that's what was going on at all in this of since i just think it was the trial judge misapprehend in the way that the law should be applied the truck that started the analysis with the specification rather than with the claims and i understand that the specification is always referred to but i think it's telling the way the trial judge went about the analysis was to begin with the specification and it's a notable opinion i believe for how little time the trial judge spends talking about the claims themselves suggesting that that is an error that is that that is a basis for reversal at all and i'm just suggesting that in this case i think it is emblematic of the lack of the lack of emphasis the court brought to the claimed term different than the cases that the that the defendant cite to clear because in all those cases i think the made wants were tractable honeywell and waiting there is a structure that's disclosed in the claims and then the court looks to the of occasion to construe how broad that structure should be construed but it can this this my problem with with your argument is that if you look at the specification when you're talking about the metal version every every time you talk about it you talk about it in terms of using sleep and that's not accurate your honor economy two lines forty one and swear words there is a specific reference to what we refer to as the two piece configuration and that is a configuration that does not include the sleeve and there are at least two other references to such a configuration in the in the specification and that in fact your honor is with the way this patent has been structured from the beginning from the very to regional claims in this case and those are at sixteen eighty seven of the appendix there were claims to  asserted in this case but they're still there and that was the structure throughout so i would disagree with the contention by the other side that there is no reference to a sleeve in the specification it's there and as i refer to c two and two other places that we have reference and are in our briefs indeed if you read the specification as including all of the claims then that strengthens your argument it does and that and that is a point i have to tend to make that what you suggest it is true but it is it  shows the intention from the beginning were to have claims with the sleeve and without a second isn't that because there were some claims that relate to the plastic material and other claims that related to the the hard material there are there references to plastic in the hard material independent claims that that is true but that is not the reason for the structure being the way it words and in fact there's nothing in the language in column two that the language that i've been referring to your honor references to a configuration that does not have a sleeve and that's been the case with this patent from the time it was originally filed and that's the reference i gave you to to the file history  thank you and may please the court and i can see your biggest problem i think in both of these instances is claim differentiation and i know why while that's not the end of the world here there are some there are very specific deepening claims that claim precisely the limitations that the trial court read in to the independent well that's true your honor the kind differentiation in the situation there are dependent claims the do recite essentially midway but that same thing with respect to the slaves of the that's true but that was just looking at the essentially midway we know claim differentiation it's an analytical tool and it's not of the hard and fast rule and here where the claim language really it has no other meaning claim differentiation has to yield when you mean it has no other meaning maybe it has no meaning at all well a rise in the level of an ambiguity but if you take claim differentiation to its end here then you're back to basically striker's construction which is nearby and then the rest of that claim language trying to understand is you know are we committing are you asking us to commit the cardinal sin of the same construction and simply put the limitation from a preferred embodiment in there or is there something in the specification that would teach us away from maximizing axial length in a different way i think you have to take the specification at face value but it says what you want to do is have equal lengths and therefore maximize it it doesn't say maximize one over the other and yet i think that the really one taper ripped right it is yes and the recess as to be within the table it cannot be outside it or striker wants to focus just on juxtapose which we should say ok nearby but there's more to it it also says in the presence of the other and if you read the specification where talks about the presence of one in the other it's the presence doesn't the language in the preferred embodiment is used in the middle of the paragraph to describe the angle and the preferred material and i don't think you can assume because anything that follows that throughout the following columns of the town is all of a sudden the preferred inviting so if we're looking at that in column servant it says that the two segments what line to us and column seven and line sixteen having generally the same and therefore maximized a end of that particular paragraph and in column seven it talks about substance subsequently attaining the desired locking gauge went with the seating surface is not compromised by that the presence of the recess meaning the recess within the taper doesn't compromise the effect of the taper and he uses the word presence presence doesn't mean somewhere outside over or just back to nearby and then the rest of this claim one which doesn't mean any so now you're asking us to read presence to mean in the present i mean the presence of my colleagues here but we're not you know but it up against each other so you're asking us to read presents to mean that it that they have to be inside of each other that's wh putting the recess within the tape or you don't want to compromise the tape that's the that's a point was invention why couldn't the recess be a quarter of the way instead of that way it could be but district court judge that you do appreciate that there is nothing in the clay that's like what the court read and well i will agree that these different the judge used different words and i think that's part of the problem with using this type of they claim language when you use relative locations such that their effect in this is maintained if i have that means as it has to work then it's a meaningless limitation if all it means is in the presence of one another means is that it has to be somewhere on the same device that's a meaningless limitation and we're just back to nearby and that means not now if i could just turn briefly to the tapered secure m it riginal claim one when others in other words you can see that where they wanted to claim a three part mechanism they knew how to climb a three part mechanism and yet claim forty one it means something we have to figure out from the specification what it means if it means it just has to work then again this is a meaningless limitation so what is compatible with well you might think well they have to make together but that's not described and the only thing that's just right in the pan for these hard bearings is that you use a sleeve to accomplish the mating so that they're compatible with each other otherwise compatible with mean they work and that's not a limitation uncertain claim scott and they try to distinguish the world class case by saying without explanation that this disputed language is plain on its face and submit that it's not and it's very important to recognize that there are versus not and they do assignment and we need to we need to look at the specifications that determine right what the point is and clearly the the point is maximizing the axle length of the tape right isn't that one of the key point and by in the i'm gonna count for line fourteen and by virtue of the locking b and comp being accomplished among segments one sixteen and one eighteen one sixteen zero one eighteen are the segments on the shot and having by including this claim language that status that the first and second securing our mints have to be placed at relative locations and your your answer for why of the relative location of the two locking mechanisms was a preferred embodiment they could have added a nother profitably introduction by saying in another preferred embody meant here's what we're going to talk about the further bottom of the  when one is in the presence of the other and i think it's important to understand that those two are linked so it's not that you simply have to have two locking mechanism that are effective and then you have to have the two locking m mechanisms being in the presence of another what it's saying is when you're in the situation where you have one locking mechanism in the presence of the other and i explain why that requires the groove to be within the taper when you've got that situation where you have the groove within the taper the way to do that to maintain the effectiveness is to have it in the middle because when you have in the middle you mean you have you maximize the length by having the same length paper the very end of this era poem seven clearly says it has to be within that they put that's what it's talking about it this entire language about how you can locate these two locking mechanisms to govern and still have them work is addressing th than the configuration where it's essentially midway ok no other disclosure gone over to i gave you extra time because i gave extra time to you from on the other side but if you want to wrap up at just a quick point to claim differentiation again a four six one four we talk about it page eighteen of our library this idea that the essentially midway is not simply disclosure preferred embodiment is a creation of the appeal and it's incorrect up i mean we get to decide whether that's the case or not i mean i mean he he's making the argument that that the perfervid bottom up language there even though it's in the same paragraph is really just talking about the construction or what the material is that's at issue an was the last sentence of the paragraph in the paragraph as originally written the entire remainder was added to it as part of the c i p process and so they added that knowing that preferred embodiment was there and they added that knowing the preferred environment was going to be there from there through the end of the paragraph had they wanted it to be something other than the preferred embodiment they could have made a new paragraph and that was added at the same time as this paragraph was added to the c i p where the dependent claims that talk about essential are midway and that your honor i think indicates that essentially midway was always intended to be a preferred embodiment because it was only added as part of the dependent claims not as part of the independent  court has contemplated as permitting limitations on the claims additional limitations on the claims because where it is only we're the only factor the only and issue that you add a limitation is the preferred embodiment this co has typically held that you can't read the preferred environment and what typically happens in this is sure every case that the defensive side of here is that there's more there's a statement that the limitation is the present invention there is amendment around clear way to do it but i rely mainly on two other things judge and that is that critique of the supreme court and by me this consistent with its presence only in the dependent claims and my colleagues agreed with me in the district court  specification i think that language a column seven i when we're talking about a preferred bottom it does have the reference to axial length which tells you that the actual length is one of the keys to the effect of that same