person of the word stowed would include you yes i would actually disagree with that too re i think the gut reaction when you hear those two terms and you look at the expressed definition of deployed in this back and then if you were to ask someone walking down the street what what what is the definition of started then you may come up with what the district court did however to specifically address your question one of the definitions in the record actually is from the two thousand and eleven american heritage dictionary of english language and the definition of stowed there the first definition is to place or range especially in a neat and compact way now that it has nothing to do with whether or not something is available for use there's a second the second definition does go the other way however there are certainly definitions that don't talk about stowed in terms of availability for use of those definitions are are in the record so i would  i think that's right and what we're talking about here is a patent directed to a specific invention of a plot as reformer and in this instance stowed does not mean put away and not intended for use to the contrary well if it ergonomic purchases do not appear to be available for use when there are still position i would disagree with respect to the handles and also the bench the bench if you look at if you look at the summary of the interaction with the bench rotates into two separate positions and if you look at column two line fifty eight fifty three sixty one this fact there actually says therefore the bench one stove provides a seat at the carriage level to the bench may provide a seat at a level other than the carriage and also a push off surface that faces the carriage now the seat is something that is used with the exercise that's the whole purpose of this device is to have a seat that can be used in different positions to do various different exercises and we actually have some pictures in the record i'm if you look at it illustration seven and the blue brief that actually shows not only   and that shows the inventor actually on the machine doing exercise now the picture on the right is actually the accused product and the bench that her back foot is on there moves up and down if you look on page fourteen you can actually see the bench in the upper position there in the deployed position and then on the right on page fifteen the bench is moved down now that's a picture that we actually located on the evidence in the case it was located on the internet availability troops know that you you clearly can't this is in fact just about not intended to be used so yes i agree i think that's one of the kind of hard things about the district court's opinion to reconcile as well except that the whole point of the district court's opinion is when you read the patent you keep getting the impression over and over again that stone is the opposite of declawing and while it is  r where you wouldn't be able to use the jump or for example however there are embodiments that specifically actually say this is a this is a seat for exercise when used or in the stow ever discussed was using the bench in the down position for exercise i don't think there's any other space or any other spot in the specification that describes that there was an expert decoration submitted in the ca there you have this photograph showing the other sides on their website is that he said or yes showing somebody that you say is using the device with the bench in construction we looked at that and said it how can we in good faith say that this bench is not intended for use we know how these benches are used we know how these bodies machines are used and the whole point of the bench being able to be in different positions is so that it can be used in for different exercises there is an efficiency end and a reason to stow it for purposes of let me make maybe you're not understanding what might not be legally relevant here but i guess this is puzzling to me to have a photograph there they say it's from their website so let's say you interpret that photograph as they are advertising a particular use of their machine forbid any women for instance if you know we certainly address the fact that we do not think that the limitation that it's not intended for use and available which is what they are at the time was improper and if you again if you go back to the expressed definition it's as the term started is used here and means a state or position of the component of the reform or which collapses the overall volume of the reformer to a minimum that says nothing about intended for use unavailable for use or anything else that's the definition and the minute we start wading into this discussion about whether the bench is intended for use or not intended for use i think the court has gone down the entire wrong path here when full statement in the definition continues stowed his gear in a foot locker well clearly when your gear is placed in a foot locker it's not available or intended for use and in fact there is nothing in that statement that suggests that the why don't we talk about that for a moment because there is a definitional paragraph that applies to the term stuff and i think we would argue that that first sentence of that paragraph which is the sen six of the pattern and it says the term stowed is used in means of state or position of a component of the reform which collapses the overall volume of the reformer to a minimum in so far as it may be affected by the components but that paragraph continues says in other words and then it translated into a stowed position in practical terms is no longer reachable for the same purchase achieved by the cheap by the user in the position of the port the former from which she came to purchase when the component was deployed and that's certainly true when the handles are lower and they're not fully accessible in the same range but they're still accessible for the user the handles in this picture unlike in your product which involve a cable are in the patent there demonstrated as recessed accessible for use on the entire machine when they're in their stone position the whole issue could otherwise not be stowed those candles are stead of but they're still fully accessible at least in the description in the pattern and can be used as the exercise machine is intended to be well i think that there isn't a point to a very important point to be drawn there which is that when the pentagon wanted to connote that a given ergonomic purchase was available and intended for use for performing exercises by means of their former they have at their disposal a very particular term a very precise term that to noted exactly that and of course that was the term deployed so if the panty wanted to express that the handle is in your example in their fully depressed position were available and intended for use somehow at odds with each other or opposites of each other isn't there room for  positive that that's the way i read these definitions and that shirt and i appreciate that and i think there's other other evidence in the intrinsic record and in the specification that illuminates that issue and where i might point the court is to forty eight  column eight beginning of line three and it says more detailed examples of the mechanical means for translating each of the ergonomic purchases from their stowed to their deployed positions are provided below ergonomic purchases from their stowed to their deployed positions are provided below in our view that clearly expresses the panties of intent that you actually have to physically move a given ergonomic purchase from it stowed benches of scenes are very similar in that respect i might go to the benches to see argument if i could briefly because i think that argument fails for three principal reasons certainly the first of which is that if the patentee wanted to express that the rotatable bench a shown in figures eight in town and was intended to be used they would have labelled it deployed against it and that would have cleared up this ambiguity it would have told us that these aren't mutually exclusive terms that these terms are terms of opposition but they didn't label it that way and the second reason that that argument fails the bench is a seed argument is because the district court construed ergonomic purchase to mean a surface designed for contacting by a human engaged in exercise while mounted on the moving carriage to achieve stability now that while mounted on a moving carriage language is critical here because clearly if someone sitting on the bench they're not mounted on the moving carriage and so the bench wouldn't even constitute an ergonomic purchase as that team term has been construed and i need to emphasize at those pictures because there's a couple important points to make about it the first of which is as counsel has acknowledged that image didn't even come into existence until after this case was filed meaning that type of evidence would not have even been available so the hypothetical person  identified by reference numeral forty nine in its stowed configuration now what you see the only portion of the belly bar that's actually visible here is the horizontal crossbar aspect of it it's the it's at the bottom left a figure three element forty nine now someone could sit on that if there's a there's a flat platform there someone could conceivably use the ballet bar as a seat in that stowed configuration however i don't think that that supports the proposition that the ballet bar is intended for exercising use by means of the reformer simply because someone could sit on it in that configuration i guess moving along that the critical aspect of the district court's construction is that the if the patent unmistakably presents these terms stowed in deployed as opposing terms mutually exclusive terms there's not a single indication anywhere necessarily the end all be all when it comes to what stowed means it says that you can consult other sources to try and ascribe a meaning that are not not not discovered meaning with you consult other course other definitions contemporary dictionary definition in the mechanical sense sure the chemical sense which is elucidated by the prior paragraph clearly involves the size of the reform or an obligation of the components when they are still i don't know you know i would know that wonder former itself is perhaps interpreted that passage differently than maybe the court has because they of course cite to the american heritage dictionary in support of the dictionary definition that they feel is intent the a component but it's very strange to conceptualize intended as an aspect of the structural component in an apparatus claim  that's a very foreign concept now i understand it sucked in because of their expressed definition of a ploy i'm just not sure that if she gets sucked in given the abnormality of importing intent into an apparatus intended he is into stone when is not lifeless containment i fully appreciate that position and out of course agree that it is somewhat of a bizarre way to express a mechanical devices isn't in a factor what we have is the term ergonomic purchase in assertive claims eleven and fifteen is a purely batch but the fact of the matter remains this is the way that the patent he chose to express the invention was through intended use i agree it's perhaps not the best way to have gone about this this might have been a much easier analysis had they actually so i think they're not positive that of course the what the district court said so sure so i guess maybe a good place to start as it always is in the claim some so i would direct the court to a fifty one of the if and it's and we can look to  reflecting this notion that there has to be a translation actual physical movement from one configuration to the other from stow to deployed you have to physically move each of these various components between those two configurations says component translated to stowed position and continues is no longer reachable for the same purchase achieved by a user in the position on their former from which again the purchased when the component was deployed again that's expressing the fact that a given component can't concurrently exist and stowed in an deployed configurations and so it ultimately boils down to really a logic game is what we have here is that we have these two opposing mutually exclusive configurations if deployed is taken to mean the intended use state it follows that stowed would reflect a position of not intended use and i think we looked at some of the example repurchases certainly the the jump forward i think maybe for meit's the clearest indication just very very briefly the when you look at the the full term for that full paragraph of the definition of stover i think the other place that shows that the component actually can be sentence of the definition of the term stowed it's starting at column five line sixty three ok so is a component translated to a stone position in practical practical terms is no longer reachable for the same purchase achieved by the user in the position which with a reformer from which he gained the purchase when the component was deployed so that is actually implying that when you move the reformer into the stone position it is available for a different purchase different purchase is simply a fractional point or something where you can use the machine to do exercise so i think that if you know i think there are there are two so that the device has to at least have two positions one of which meets the definition of deployed and one of which meets the definition of style so i don't think that one single position can meet again both of those definitions that's correct then why doesn't judge or a class construction follow a lead eally because the definition of deployed it is the term deployed as used here ian means a state or position of the components of decision i disagree i think if you if you look at both the looking at the definition of deployed means a state or position of a component of the reformer in which the component is intended to be used now once you get to the second position that has to be a separate second position but then minimizes the volume of the reform are according to the definition of deployed so that there are still has to be two separate positions and so when once you're in the deployed state excuse me stowed state that same position cannot be considered to be a deployed state i think the last point is if if the inventor here had wanted to define stowed as not being intended for use it's very clear way to do it the definition of the ploy which print media we perceive that says that it isn't ended for use if the definition of stowed was meant to be the opposite of that are seen seem to be quite inconsistent with his mission that you need to achieve to prevail in this case so let me go back over it with you because i if you think it deployed and sturdy and still be intended for you that's what you need to get to to prevail something can be stowed if it's in it's minimal position so it's irrelevant whether it's intended for use or not so that means it can be stowed if it's in this minimal physical space position and is still intended for use that way if that is the only definition of deploy it is intended for use and if your view of skoda is it has nothing to do with intent q do you see the problem you see the problem with with this that you've created bringing out the hood so i mean i don't i guess i shouldn't be using the term with mutually exclusive in order to meet the definition of stone you simply have to be in a position