case is restaurant technology versus jersey shore chicken or magic christmas restaurant technologies two thousand and nine eleven seventy six it may please the court counsel i represent restaurant technologies this report found that three plane limitations in two planes not present any fact issues with respect to nine infringement as a literal i run into three from what i thought i'd like to start if i could with the being network interconnecting term very stations are are interconnected with being network the district court found it because of the absence of physical connections and because it stated the supply site components of this well distribution system are not connected in any way to the way site components there can't be either literal or infringement by  does seem clear that your magic system as being a magic hasn't argued figure asli if at all that it's not a network but parties are focused on the term interconnected the district court noted that interconnect citing a dictionary can be defined as to connect with one another and we accept that definition we know that the claim language doesn't say heart plumb connection or direct connection or physical connection it simply says connection one of the members of th connected by piping say the weight doesn't support our case the weighted it doesn't support our case is if there are all kinds of connections that are depicted there but the way that it does support our case is that an set out in the patent works set of numbers cycles and then and eight additional cycle they're also depicted in our brief and so that kinds of interconnections that the pattern says are important is the accomplishment of those cycles from  station to another and it is apparent in fact i don't think it's even contested that the oil magic system accomplishes all those cycles we certainly can see better what's required i indication in the patent that that's what's being contemplated in fact the only evidence as to what a trigger valve is comes from the declaration of joe duke the r c i the expert who indicated without contradiction that what is meant by trigger valve was a momentary valve or a ballot that is engaged so that it was health flows only when it's something it's being applied so the purpose of that being that a worker doesn't turn it on and  go walk someplace else we think we also think that the court was overly narrow in identifying structure and that the pump in both the automatic system and the r t i system play a role in the third element that plays a role check valve at the end of one controlling the control means iran or the issue that the court focused on was the level of automation required what oil magic has its clears electromechanical switches pushbutton to start a pump and that determines what kind of the direction of the oil we got a little x on the work continuum which is not a crucial term but the concept when you're looking at a structure and looking at equivalence to the structure of each of automation that they thought satisfied the terms of the invention and the inventors communicated as forcefully as they could that the level of automation for this control means was not an essential part of the invention in any respect and they make that point over and over again column three they say the valve controller may be either a manually or electronically operated controller column six they say selecting the point and again using some oral lips he's here column six line forty six the third one column ten also line forty six would be a very odd way to write a patent to say the level of automation doesn't matter here's one extreme here's another extreme and then to conclude that an obvious alternative in between an electro mechanical switch was meant to be excluded and we think that maybe the most compelling evidence of interchangeability of these features was supplied by well magic to this court has emphasized it's not just whether structures are interchangeable it's whether they are known to be interchangeable but here  step further in connection with an obviousness argument invalidity argument it argued that not only that these sorts of structures were interchangeable but they were and known but that they were obvious it said that a trigger bow knobs microprocessor they were all known at the time that this patent was applied for they were all conventional ways of operating control systems like this it would be obvious to replace with one another they don't use the word interchangeable but that's exactly the point they're communicating in very forceful terms if i'm subject to any questions i would be inclined to stop now and then come back for  or seven i think i saw on the side and i have to say what it was to like after we're seen it is very familiar with that we've been familiar with it for the last few years we have it on the dipstick and this is what the district court focused on we have no way are these two connected yet on my pipe which is the language of the clause typing network interconnected those five elements it's not any connection between the tip of the of the the only two structures disclosed to specification for this control there was a system of push pull knobs for operating the valves which was slidell not with a lever on the side and that in turn operated the valve and the if you think about squeezing it as a like in a gas station we could gas into your car and that opens the nozzle so that oil can then flush out and go through that nozzle and she said look i'm going to analyze the the seat for purposes of of our discussion she said that squeezing that could be said to be a trigger or what you're doing is energizing setting up electrical circuits that china want a positive displacement pump you're not doing anything more than that she said owens is insubstantial variation rather than talking about in terms of function way result i think the courts tend to do the same and sometimes look at it in that way which she actually did function way in result anyway i've got mixed drug but for operating the valves in limitation one eat you've got to have either the one or implicated in those push pull knobs for the microprocessor control so there is an additional function that this close but there is disclosed a specification that corresponds it is linked to a claim function there is no support there is no case or here is a statute that says you compare allegedly infringing device to anything on  like to make one point if i could about the claim made issue again the piping network interconnecting we moving the best evidence of what the parties think connected means is supplied by the magic itself magic stipulated that its own patent describes its system as installed and what it said in its own patent despite the arguments you've just heard is that there is quote paint being connected close quote among other components the freshened used oil its own system is connected it describes it in advertising materials as a closed loop system the connection and as it's illustrated in the cycles that we set out in our briefing that are set set out in the is through the fog and after the oil comes through the nozzle and then it goes into the fire and back out and there's an air gap there as depicted in the pad and that's exactly the same way it works in the automatic system if i could say just a word about clean one the dipstick plays a role in both means plus function elements with respect to claim one but it's apparent there is a nozzle that's got a no a trigger valve trigger valve as i said it's defined as a momentary valve counsel argued that pushing that button is nothing like anything in the past and that's exactly what's disclosed in the patent a trigger about and finally there's a balance factors multiple that you you push the trigger about activate the pump of al that's exactly what is described in the pad and the only difference is the physical distance between the switch and the valve if you ignore the check valve at the end and the pad says nothing about the placement of those two features finally there are equivalency issues for all three points we have not argued the doctrine of equivalence for the means plus function terms but obviously when we're looking at the structure that satisfies the means we're looking at the structure or equivalents to the structure and obviously for the for playmate we're talking about the doctrine of equivalence when we're talking about a substantial them but the most substantial one is is around the eight sixty eight fifty nine and eight sixty range of the appendix and that is a declaration big goals through that means plus function analysis that goals from the equivalence analysis for each of these three issues not in conclusory terms but in very detail for terms and this court as has issued a number of decisions in which that kind of