thing as they're both connections it's the same word in the same phrase so whatever it means for screws to be angered the vertebrae that's what it means for the screw head to be anchored to the implant and third the pla on the issue of infringement relied on the claim you mean then when the trial proceeded gold was presented evidence on the issue of what the plaintiff anger is part of a rigid connection and on the different didn't claim language as well is there any it if we were to have to set it really agree with you on the claim construction of the set of seven six patent is there are still of question infringement lies out there is that under that kind of instruction needs to be resolved it doesn't i don't believe that cindy's has suggested that and that because of the securing plate and the a grueling with the more holes serve different functions and there are basically independent ways of accomplishing the same a new argument and he said i basically explained why if you look good it's seventeen for forty to seventeen for forty one of the event that's where he explains in the end of the trial i decided to claim construction he didn't fraser figure eight now it's no longer fraser's figure it out becomes their figure absolutely right but at the same time those annotations don't necessarily convey we can necessarily portion fraser's screw heads crossing the boundary over the over the plain lines and so i guess what i'm wondering him well maybe there's a problem with a claim construction that says any screw heads or that are partly inside and outside the boundary lines and you have a problem babbitt that's not necessarily the same thing as saying that this they disclaimed everything except screw heads and bore holes being entirely within the boundary line or speculated agree with how much is below the plane but even if in your words as high as portion is below the plane the bird claims that is partly or entirely that that's a construction foreclosed in the ninet of course because the jury provided the same royalty for the entire damages period and that included both today mysteriously to seven only that hat was in play and when all three pounds weren't play and both experts to the bone and i think that's important here because the suffocation actually criticizes and this is a common one winds thirty one hundred thirty nine criticize it rigid connection between the phone screws of a fixation  fixation element in the past is entirely consistent throughout in that regard can i move you on to since your place in so much reliance on the two zero seven patent to the securing plate limitation play the claim on does not limit the means by which the scary plate has to be attached to the implant and the shaft does not turn that securing weight in the something other than a securing later back both experts agree that they could the normal conventional purpose and also in this particular context serves a second purpose which is to be this securing place that's correct here we go back to where we started  deals with the cap that is assuming that we disagreed with you on at least one of that right when the normal rule applies when it's not clear when there's a bunch of different patterns of using different products we don't know how the jury of the race to each of those hold the boat secured to the ocean floor we had no boat has moved and if i get in the pens or some movement that's medically necessary correctly there is some movement this medically necessary but note that what doesn't move is the anchor doesn't move the rope moves the boat but the where the anchor is if it's not holding it's not anchoring you're drifting across the lake the ocean whatever it might happen to be so their own definition really undermines their painting argument