it's clean of perforations and then the spec the thrust of the spect is really devoted to the idea the invention of many containing of having all of the perforations in the  the back where there's maybe some ambiguity no and that the district court seem to rely on for the notion that well now when we have a claim limitation that says generally horizontal imperfect top wall maybe that adverb generally is modifying not only horizontal but it's also modified in perth for it because of what you said in column three with substantially imperfect could you explain how we should understand that three also well i guess what i want to know is what would you like us i think when we see the word substantially in that phrase in the spec what does it mean mean the homeless of the size does this ignited twenty five and some of the figures does it mean smaller holes holes that are so small that air can't pass through i mean i don't know i'm just wondering what that means because you're right it does say as illustrating the figures and you look at the figures and it doesn't appear to be any holes and it also says that the air can't pass through so that supports your position but why does it say substantially  or the generally truck sort of chaser kind of like in that same column three beginning at line thirty nine where it says top all six is disposed in a generally horizontal orientation so again that somehow are not placed in the common for somehow modified both horizontal and in for the terminology of general i have a question if we were to agree with you on the claim construction what other issues would be imperfect ok so i guess you're suggesting that there would be a need for you to refile a summary judgment motion not infringement rather than it just being completely that claim construction right correct not to claim destruction district court adopted so in we're confronted with having to understand what is its meaning in claim one when it says generally horizontal imperfect top all to do that we need to look at the entire patent and that can include the other claims of the patent and so i was looking at defending claim twenty three which says he vented software that set forth and claim twenty two wherein said imperf are a tough wall space depart from said base ports are in the distance in the range of point four two point five inches and so the fact that the depend that when you go back and look at the claim one for generally horizontal imperfect top or the generally is really only defining horizontal when it has nothing to do with imperfect top or you're a said in perforated top all i think claim twenty three is short that's a shorthand reference given the incident basis to the overall phrase if you know it later in that same claim twenty three i don't think it's changing what we what we get from the punctuation in claim one or from the start so it could have said top all under that line of thinking correct if that if it was if it was a pure clean shorthand it would have said only said and it didn't refer to the horizontal or generally just like with the base portion it only referred to bas the contribution these inventors came up with was the idea of installing the perforations on the side wall to provide ventilation rather than in the top all that's that's one of the way i read the spec yeah i think that's that's that's so they can't be seen i think you're strongly supporting a specification is that part and count three were first from the beginning substantially imperfect but then it does seem therefore does not permit air to pass th passage or really anywhere in this patent the inventors contemplating the i guess clever idea that not only could you put perforations in the side walls but maybe you could tuck away some perforations in the top wall that would actually be hidden from view when you have trap a zoid all slanted side walls i mean there's nothing like that contemplated in the patent well there's about not really and limitations from the drawings into the claims you know we're starting to run afoul of that when we only focus on the drawings and i don't think that the claims are that narrow i think that when you if you have something that is generally you know if you look at a claim as general and perforate the vast majority of these product is is sentence that does say substantially imperfect but at the same time in the same breath also says therefore does not permit disagreed on the claim construction that wouldn't really and in this case and we would still have to confront the validity trial in which i can't be sure if that's just an affirmative defense or a counter claim and likewise we'd also have to address the issue of whether it was corrected to dismiss the invalidity defenses that were deemed to be  the defenses were dismissed five years into the case we were not able to replace them we asked for leave as an alternative relief after the judge decided let's brief the issue as far as whether or not the pleadings even meet