the context of the two three three claims is important but the claims are directed to reducing or dissipating the pressure before it leaves the lid the content of these claims and the context of these claims are directed to managing that pressure before it exits the lid the prior art albert reference considers sequential opening what the parties have called preventing where you first open the event and then open the drink opening the chafe and reference that is largely at issue here is directed to venting to provide a smooth flow of fluid and to isolating the spring assembly to protect it from falling neither of those prior art patents addressed the problem that was and being considered by mr panelling in the two three paths neither of those patents manage the release of pressure before that pressure exits the lid claims or to be interpret it to correspond with what and how fi invent or describe his invention part of the problem here is that the board and p m i took the claims out of that context as a result boars applied in reasonably broad interpretation there or serious claims in here which impose other requirements other than the presence of a vent changer in and of would be helpful to me if you  honor that would only be the case if the valve had were considered part of the trigger and why isn't it because the valve head is what it's protecting the seal it's serving as the vent seal rather than the trigger in a anyone know how do i know that's before that pressure gets to the exit so that's not an issue in chafing in chafe and that part of a that is behind the valve head in no way communicates with the flow of vapor that is being ex then that requirement satisfied then d d and c c could potentially be considered the vent chamber yes or ok but that's contrary to what the board found as you noted the board found that  consequence for the board's decision if it is now or mentioned let's look at that in the context of the claims your honor for example claim twenty three claim twenty three calls for a second aperture providing fluid communication between the vent chamber and the trigger that second aperture in the two three three patent is the hole through which the trigger extends so the trigger communicates with the vapor in our invention and it could if you will in chief and that language it could be filed it could get dirty as a result of being in the steam of the coffee or tea or whatever there that second aperture has to facilitate i'm sorry that it's second actually after providing fluid communication between the vent chamber a space for lowering pressure and the trigger in chafe and they would not constitute a space between the vent chamber and the trigger it would not be that it would not meet that second aperture limitation because ebay would not be part of the vent chamber it does not provide the pressure reduction requirement of fluid communication in claim twenty three refers to fluid communication between the vapor and the trigger in chafe and it would only be between ambient air and the so claimed twenty three would be p we can look at other claims to find where their words an improper unreasonably broad interpretation adopted for example claim to claim two calls for the event seal to close access between the right but when that seal is closed b b is always open to the cavity the b is that's part of our point when b b is a part of the vent chamber and does not show closing off access to the cavity because b b is a part of that i'm sorry b b is a part of the chamber so you're not closing off access to the chamber from the cavity ok top that's the exit opening if you will when we get down to claim two we're not simply closing off the vent aperture we're now closing off the chamber no claim one is not a dish you the parties didn't bring that in for but in terms of how you interpret claim to there's a difference between closing off the chamber and closing off the vent aperture and chafe and does not show closing off the vent chamber for the very reason you say which is that portion b is always access accessible to the cavity as to all of the claims there is a third claim issue that needs to be addressed and that's it the board ignored the functional limitations invent chamber of requiring a space for lowering the pressure boards definition a vent chamber has a structural and a functional limitation the structural limitation is that there's a space having an entrance and an exit the functional limitation is that space is for lowering pressure of  his position is that anything that allows air to move in at or out constitutes event change that takes us completely out of context it puts us in a situation for example we're just a starbucks live with a  slotted opening becomes a vent chamber because there's some thinking as to the material there's an entrance and an exit as they would say to the changing that's not what mr finale was trying to invent that's not within the context of our claims the board likewise lost sight of the context of the claims when it said well chafing has a venting operation a venting operation does not lead to a chamber a venting operation is simply allowing pressure to exit the lid the board tried to fill in that gap by saying the person of ordinary skill would recognise that there is expansion for example into that area t v that you noticed judged and that because the person of ordinary skill would be aware of p v quills in our t v ideal gas law that that would be in that small area of the could for example serve as a vent chamber but there's nothing in either chafing or in the pattern with which it's combined albert that teaches or suggest the idea of having an area for actually managing the pressure merely allowing pressure to vent through the valve chamber does not teach mind that the second to embody ment's merely show a passageway they show a straight line to where the valve had comes in and interrupts the flow the first embodiment shows a embodiment chafing does call a vent chamber but it's really functioning as a valve chamber it simply receives the valve and prevents fluid from flowing out of it i mean i understand it coming back to claim twenty three for just o with respect to other claims aside from twenty three what were effect with that yeah the analysis what is shown by the order has as to all the claims that are in dispute yanar the fact that the board has defined the term event chamber so broadly as to include a space that does not participate in the reduction of pressure shows that the board has applied an unreasonably broad interpretation of the clay like the vent chamber in the vent chamber as it's called in chasen is it then chamber in name only and as for the reason cited or brief the name is not controlling a matter is because if you include that as a part of your as a part of your definition a vent chamber if it shows that you have affectively read out the language it says the vent chamber is for the lowering of pressure because that section is not for the lowering of pressure and when you get to claim twenty three and the the thou hadst yes it will certainly contact the pressure of that comes from the side to go up but that portion that's behind it goes through remember it's the second aperture under claim twenty three provides fluid communication between the vent chamber and the trigger that second aperture is not providing any fluid communication between the vapor that's going on the other side of the valve and the trick and that's what's important here is that the vapor is what was being pushed through i'm about to run out of time as this has to fi true but that's not the word did consider to be adventurous seems to me yes yes but the basis under which they concluded that a was then chamber was part of the bench amber is because number one they deemed that the entire yellow highlighted area which is a figure ten fifty located on page twenty four of the appellant's brief sections a a c c d d and d d all constitute a venture for and if you look at the agreed claim construction and this is important because councils trying to take you away from what they agree to is the claim construction the claim destruction is a space having an entrance and exit for lowering a pressure vapor or gas it is not space is having and trance an exit from lowering the vapor gas so working in  normal operation our expert mr doggerel very clearly said that a person of ordinary skill what i understand that the entire city and the entire structure all of the yellow would be required then chamber because where else would the valve head reciprocate where else would the valve stem come into and if you look at the specifications of the two three three patent and this is this is what what i think  is the most intriguing part of the trigger in in the two three three patent and it's demonstrated in figure sixteen seventeen and eighteen has thirty nine ok that's a long three six it's probably toward the back so probably be later in your in your collection would at times be in the shape and then chamber which would indicate portions a and d d that was his testimony and the board gave credit to that not only that the board gave credit to mr dog and our ex who very clearly indicated that it would have a portion a would have to be part of the venture because it is where the head would reciprocate into an order for there to be ordinary operation of that venture or what counsel what ignite is proposing and they did this below in in the board to the board was that you should look at each of these portions or ok well under the hypothetical then i still think you meet the limitations for all the claims except for potentially one and that's number twenty three which spring fifty eight to be part of the trigger and so when you when you look at the valve head i think you should also consider the valve some fifty seven and the spring fifty eight as part of the trigger and shaken but i disagree that portion a is not a part of the the venture that would that would essentially be be looking at the this is this that this claim as understand that portion a along with all the other portions would constitute part would be encompassed by the venture and then the board actually used those that terminology they in looking in considering the extent of the vent chamber they concluded on page twenty one that  so it would be inappropriate on a number of number of levels to not accord a vent chamber status most important is that it would contravene the parties agreed construction well the construction is a state aid space having an entrance and exit from lowering the pressure of  it is not spaces in which each space has an entrance and exit for the lorenc a vapor or gas ignite is suggesting a different construction they allude to the board over applying the agreed construction they suggest the nova review but there's no dunno over review here because the construction was agreed if you agree with council and we've battled a lot he's a great guy but i don't agree with him on that point that you should look at each portion and test whether each portion meets the agreed construction that's the difficulty we have if you adhere to the agreement the stipulation of the parties then you have to look at as the board below did at the entire structure a thr b as the venturing for because it has an entrance and exit and because it's an area when the head reciprocates it performs a lowering of pressure i'm also point out that the specific ation of the two three three does not describe how big the chamber has to be the specification of the two three three does not talk about reducing pressure the only allusion to pressure in the specification is to avoid a chimney effect but there's no discussion as to what that means and it only discusses chimney effect in connection with some dimensional differences between the the exhaust tube and the and the chamber itself so to read the limitation the council suggests would be the important limitations into the claims of this patent and that is that isn't permissible as this court has said and continental said it's be into earlier this month if you look at the claims of the two three three none of the claims talked about reducing pressure from the vent from the from the cabin from the cavity where the where the liquids are six five six and twenty one talk about releasing pressure through that act which or that is different to what councils jesting there is no claim that requires that area or portion it may be a standalone morning everybody i'd like to touch on just a couple of things if you don't mind valve stem fifty seven helical spring fifty eight fifty six to mention to project intervention for twenty seven i want to point out that our expert at money for ninety seven to twenty four ninety eight he testified that portion in his in his view which is substantial evidence and it's a substantial evidence test here that portion a of men chamber twenty seven while portion is the point that you were trying to make however i do not believe that would cause a person of ordinary skill to understand that portion a is not a part of the elongated then chamber twenty seven chamber portion is part of the greater than change the point here is if you parse these different portions that's what council wants you to do parse these portions and apply the change it serves the function similarly the two three three has a similar the two three three wouldn't stand up to the construction that the council suggested because in the the the trigger of the two three three the trigger seals as there as there reciprocated in leave an area to the outside which would be a and no vapor communication no fluke communication cursor that outside area either it would be an inconsistent reading with their own specification to accept the proposition that portion a is not mentioned if you don't have any other questions you page fifteen twenty seven in the petition they mapped the elements the elements that they mapped as the trigger as you see at the middle of the page is the actuator unit fourteen actuator element fifty and element fifty one  one seventy two hundred one seventy two so in particular you could turn for example over to figure nine on one seventy five and twenty that would be the actuator one fifty but on that same people your honor the first that we talked about at fifteen twenty seven i think it's important to note that the vent seal is identified as the valve head it's not mapped as a part of the trigger well it could fifty five item fifty five but i believe that the petition is what defines the scope of their claim your honor and that's what we responded to they have got to make the argument for example that the valve have would be both and that's not how they mapped it the second point that i make is that as you saw that t shaped trigger arm where the valves combat this way if we were to split that bar and to try and put this last motion in it so that it would first pass a space so that those didn't happen automatically all you're doing on that t shape is you're now on that t shaped actuator you're still moving those two valve heads simultaneously you're not creating sequential opening there's not