with resolving those three questions is hard work and it's very important the same time the controversy that brings my client on the board today is also very important is however much more straightforward question and the outcome is clear regardless of what this court does with the cyber stand now in addition to the party bruce two quarters sea breeze from twenty  invalidate the past and it would be invalidated on precisely the same grounds that the panel laid out let me let me ask you assuming we were to say that we give deference to that factual conclusion why they're giving it couldn't fail in the structural gap or that you don't even get to that point because on the face of the claims there is nothing that appears in the claims that would kind of structure battery which provides d c current and doesn't require rectifier and you talk with their expert if you found that they read it could also be many other things in your position that the that the court's finding identify and specified structure and specifications so this i think that the issues before the court on the outcomes that titian are really quite important and do have a lot of effect on one case but in this case it really does there's nothing that w to the idea of uniformity the purpose for which this court was created one judge makes a finding concerning the meaning of the term and to give deference to one and me in a positive way means little human uniformity but it does so at the expense of consistency with other federal court proceedings were fifty two dollars and says that if there is a finding of fact in some instances not often but in could you explain to me in your brief you echoed something that the p t o also suggested which is that questions of historical fact can arise and those should be given deference when decided i don't understand what that why isn't doesn't the question devolves in every case into what did people with skill in the art think the word meant at the time that's the quintessential definition of plain meaning like taylor i think you need to give you one thing you record testimony and so forth that we are not human the call record but it seems to me that's just part of the cold record so why is the district court expertise for position vis a vis the pardons in this case different than  area in the second story interpretation area there are no facts it's still nowhere in the country suggests that that converts any part of the statutory interpretation issue into a question of fact so why read it here well the only reason it the difference between saying the ultimate question is one for to know overview but yet the question of what one of the art understood the term to mean is somehow a historical fact i think i think maybe there's a different that you are suggesting we should review no right so do i understand you are simply saying that if one of the factors that goes into that announce this is whether or not there was a specialized meaning to that term during the relevant an application to see what the facts and the skillful lawyers representing veterans come before us and point number one is this raises an issue of law not fact they want to convert fact questions into  and your position of creating what you keep insisting is a tiny exception about which will hardly ever arise where there were hardly ever be a basis for disagreeing with the district court who's going to rely on from the leon documentary evidence ability i know we have the ability but but even having taken the case when in the ordinary course and non constitutional precedence when again we're not talking about clarifying something left i'm clear there's a fundamental question cyb of your is your argument that in answer to the on line questions you think we should overrule cybering give all kinds of deference but you don't really care because you think we should revisit the parent conclusion as it relates to waiver the basis of  starry decisis on those issues that is the second to last sentence in the very next ms accordingly we hold this interpretive issue is for the judge at this issue this legal issue you want us to conclude that the ultimate issue is one of  said i think that maybe your choice of words is a little bit i'd been deference and i mean are you saying that it's just easier for the court to conclude that something is clear error because they're looking at the same i mean it may be of a narrower application than most statutes but perhaps a harmonized paris statute there are provisions in there that have comparably narrow applications but but isn't that the essential basis for treating reason for it but i thought you just said all the statute is a law patent is not is not law it's a legal prohibition without getting permission on complete strangers to either the patent he or to the process of creating when you say define class of structures i mean it's a nice phrasing because there are some of our cases that talk about it the same type of structures but but in those cases the structures weren't all completely alternative from each something i thought i heard you say in your explanation of your experts testimony about why this term was limited to the ac power source and therefore to rect or you kept saying in the context of this patent suppose we were to think that any change in cyberwar was limited to the meaning of the term outside the patent historical finding in term of art in industry but in any event not not your broad business in that you take account of the whole thing the whole eccentric evidence but just a question about service ok so your position and your characterization of his testimony really does depend on treating as a factual matter and analysis of the term in the context of the patent i think  reconsideration of a clear decision again this is not clarifying something unclear this is actually overruling and ordinarily there has to be some intervening development from congress or the supreme court or other holdings in cases or some demonstration of unworkability there's a litany of things you considered stereotyped as none of which i think you even occurred to in your brief you're just saying we think the answer was not quite right it should be tweaked i don't understand an enormous amount of back and forth because it only of all three cases in which instances there should be that small number of cases that raise taxes and which ones there shouldn't be and during that time of everybody flooding the record with hundreds of things they pher so if that is a question of sad i feel like i must be misunderstanding p t o s news because you too are representing a small sliver of the change but yet if i had doubts what i'm understanding as your historical the historical facts right so the question you think is a softball back to simply whether or not they had that by meaning which could be meaningless ultimately if we concluded that everything else about the patent  classification cases all the time competing classification experts were talking about specifically what the words mean and your honor i said when that happen you have six minutes and forty five seconds both you and the government representatives at effect such a small sliver of cases but in my experience which is anecdotal but extensive now it's almost every case it's not a small number of cases there aren't that many cases in which a patente this in the electrical context well then maybe you do need to look at what does it mean to be electrically connected with r f qualify in addition to the wire maybe then it does have a meaning i mean i don't think even a word that seems to be playing for someone not