submitted cases the submitted cases are davis versus merit system protection board in the wild or against united states rules you will hear arguments first in how medical us to not act if i'm ever identifying or right medical for that matter ever identifying any such clear expression limitations but what about philips i'm in fact do you agree that you read the language of the claim in the context you and so beyond just the preferred embodiment we're looking in the entire specification and the ambiguity the lack of clarity i have is what we are is anything in the specification that to cover more than what's close we all agree but looking then at the claim language although i do want you to get to the spec where it says that the whatever does more than one or more of the at least contra element for blah blah will deal with that issue now you didn't put in the evidence from experts as to whether the purposes of the invention would be sir if you had just been conned with the the specified geometry if you don't have the object in advantages recitals limitations in the claim they're not going to face we don't need to achieve all of them object advantages to have a fri the button closing the jacket being made of bronze if you have two buttons on that jacket aren't they both from both two buttons on the jacket that are used to close the jacket don't you see that and they're both things wrong i do not agree with that south so you're saying in this claim language you have to demonstrate in order to be covered with the by contra learner elements that one wouldn't be enough to do it or that there was a living intention on the part of the atmosphere to limit their like it doesn't have to do it well we're not talking about whether this invention is indeed better than the prior art so what do you i mean when i fill up about weeding this in the context of the specification o here i'm happy to keep going but the last point i would like to make is simply each in plain english does not mean and fear lest it is found that future was intended to be i'm sorry that that was clear intention nah employed not maybe it means that it has to be a clear intention to exclude the subject matter or the claim should be construed respectively whether you get fish and infringement irrespect primarily on two things one is the the purposes of the invention that the purposes of the invention wouldn't be satisfied him by conduit situation only one condo satisfied the  radius limitation right and then the second thing is the testimony of the inventor your honor we are actually relying on the language of the claim itself like this thing we're relying on the fact that every object in vantage of the invention as described in the specification is met by a by times or quasi will but that's not enough because i'm philips makes clear that the mere fact that the decision is we have the entirety of the intrinsic record which is the plain language itself and its context of the language use of the lines is fully supported by the written specification with respect to their position there is no support in the written specification for their position we had better testimony that we believe would constitute ignitions against interest as to what he was driving at through his use of at least on kleins as well as what is invention covered we have a prosecution history that was does not compel the outcome of this case it is certainly consistent with the course of instruction in this case and if we have but let me get back to the plain language how does the word not and the words at least one lead to the conclusion quote must have two which in a traffic light is what you're arguing your honor he go directly to judge prose question when she asked the question for purposes of accomplishing articulation of the basis don't both kind of have to be involved  involved is one thing of the same type is another right you're saying for balance i think you're arguing that balance is necessary and therefore they both have to be the same is that your argument my argument is once you  situation where you only have one condo replace the natural condo doesn't satisfy the radius requirement and that's possible right yes ok if that's true how come the invention be satisfied under those circumstances but not satisfied if you have to artificial calm you aren't that actually goes to a invalid know with respect to the fact that you've been claiming that in order to get the benefits and advantages of this prosthetic knee both condyle have to meet the same rates right has now produced one which has only one kind aisle that meets the constant rat is the other one does not how does that prosthetic me have the benefits and advantages when you're on a thing that really goes to the technology that we're talking about the number of patents that are involved in this area doesn't have benefits and advantages of absolute are right benefits and what are its benefits and advantages they they talk about know what i'm talking about why dual consular by condo learning which has two different radio  condo that you're saying that they both have to satisfy the geometry in order to secure the advantages of the path and yet you are admitting that where you have a single artificial pond on a natural compound that the advantages of the will be secured even though the natural condo doesn't satisfy the geometry or it's correct but that doesn't seem to be consistent well you know the fact that we come up with a industry is trying to achieve this thing of incentives and that's often well and good but but it seems to me that this destroys your argument based on the purposes of the patent and your argument is that the purposes of the patent require that both artificial radius in order to achieve balance during articulation would two different calm dial radio i still achieve balance than a right own prosthetic nay has two different radio where one of the radius is doesn't comply with the claim limitation right ok or the other question i wanted to ask you one or two questions about the release issue  passed in reference to that but that issue did never then teed up through evidence showing that it was a true mutual mistake so i read the evidence that it might it possibly could be read it suggesting that there was a mutual stake my question is is that theory part of this case i don't think it is you know why why not but that was the argument that they made at the at the district court level and i don't think that's the argument that they  school releases according to its literal terms is the argument of reparations still open in other words we reject the interpretation adopted by the district court is the when i read i read some of the record here in the testimony that was given it strikes me that your witnesses testimony can be read as suggesting that they didn't understand that this would be a general release either that's what i read  issue for purposes of reformation whether both parties despite the language of the contract intended something different that they amended the massachusetts release to achieve their purposes but the just through  effectuate the intent of the parts he can do it the court can do it based on what is the clear intention of the part that you raise reformation opposing that there are some returns from the opposing summary judgment other than to indicate fact that there intended and the usual intent of these parties was not to have general released so well that may be the testimony but the language is a problem for well the language of just p problem twenty seven is the language in paragraph twenty seven which seems to be clear on the space inconsistent with any other provision in the green but it is first of all irreconcilable with the least provision of the other indication the general is where intended everything is to express to the contrary that they were just looking to deal with things that they dealt with mr papo literally testified that he never believed in fact he begged mr lives i want to move to this other plane and he acknowledges that mr white's continued to say no nine flute is off the table so under those circumstances just the nearest was absolutely in our view correct in concluding that