classic case in our view the judge granting limitation to the claims it finds no proof it's in the planes themselves and a limitation that's not call for by the specification either expressly or somehow  the purpose of the pan was two places drive assembly on on hopper a few that had existing wheels on them correctly i mean that's that's not entirely accurate there are there there are again there can that wasn't the only use but tells us that you have you've left open the possibility of the main author could put it in terms of and that's different formulation but i don't see things similar with respect to this other structure that you're using independently driven fields added to the hopper to drive it without the need for my kind nothing there between it doesn't s independently located on the upper drive at the corner of the base wall of the middle base well it's immaterial but isn't there a problem if you've got it and express the structural limitation and then you try to argue that that can just do away with that part of the limitations expressed the express claim in station is arrange for melting on the base while there's no expressed limitation that the melting  around the corner so to speak for the end wall i think would still be encompassed or still would be encompassed by the claims in this case and that was part of that the deal we case made out by mr fall our expert but he did pieces of steel and another vertical element this precut along with the end wall operate together to form this practice if you would imagine a different i think in fact that slight edge could come up either inclined wall and that in fact but you can't understand those words and without the context of the figure right correct your honor but i don't know the seventy does that come from it actually comes from claim line as a district court noted in its opinion the patent claim makes a distinction between what is a base wall and what isn't and wall if you look in claim attached and that's an important piece as well as where the actually connected to the the hopper they need to be connected attached so they don't follow on the base wall itself and that has hopper for driving movement of the hopper now i was asking questions of your of your opponent as to whether this invention is the time to replace existing if they replace those wheels that are outside look at column for the path at about lying nine or ten it says the provision of the separate reels and now we're talking about the wheels of the drive to play rather than driving the wheels already present in other words those four wheels that are on the four corners of the hopper allow simple simple mechanical attachment of the drive wheels without modification to the hopper itself right i mean it's a basic it seems like a pretty basic idea and it seem like it seems like you know assuming this happened but it seems like you guys came up with a pretty simple design or yes so precisely what we think  happened here ok so so but what you're saying is that the fact that we were able to easily design around it is their fault because they just claimed it so in such a limited fashion they claimed it limitless and very narrow fashion but yet the court has limited the construction of the court has limited it's forcing me between the award well let me think right yes and i think that's exactly right so if you look at think your two which waiter are the same wall if your honor you were to take those and try to mount them on fifty or one where you would mount eighty and eighty one would be approximately between if you that the dr assemblies are not mounted on the baseline so just rain yet you you posited that the district court judge missionary claims with respect to