this appeals involves two parties that have had a long working relationship and it involves two roller designs one of the rover designs is covered by zero five nine patent it involves a central roller and outer roller connected by spokes with some balancing lugs on the side the second patent involves the zero seven six patent which involves a can a lever roller and both of these are narrow prospects and is a very long rollers that are used in large printers by night for printing such things as billboards there are absolutely no functional limitations it's drafted as claims related to an apparatus in structural language and what the court has effectively done with it so that the use the word sounds right it is intended purpose and i think it is intended to and forwards somebody of ordinary skill in the art that when they see the structure they understand that the structure provides a very easy way for balancing of the role work it doesn't necessarily require that it be used for that means what happened as a result of this decision the judge said that they are intended for ballots so if you have to manufacturers that are purchasing the same exact role if one of the manufacturers intends to balance them then it infringes and if the other manufacture that can be used for balancing and is used a lot of that is the mention of the configure to receive a bouncing pillow but it doesn't necessarily need to and i think the problem with the actual words of the claims and beyond specification even you've got some prosecution history where claim amendments here seem to with his claim seem to have been differentiated to provide prior art in the process of the examination immediately before the patent was issued which clearly suggests that it was never intended to have a functional limitation and i think the claim language is very clear that it is   in structural last functional terms and i believe that that whether or not this is used for balancing or not the luggage could be clearly defined as structures dimensional and  well it depends on whether you follow the court's decision or not i think the court's decision would be that yes you would only have an infringement if somebody actually used them but i know from our perspective if it defines a structure and they to balance the roller that's infringing even if it's not actually used to bounce correct correct well i mean i believe that that the object is to look at the claim language and determine what the claim bend over that well and that is not something that is focused on in the prior art and it is not something that is focused on or even discussed by the city and so it isn't obvious at all that a weld and if you can look at this it certainly does look flexible and i don't believe that there is anything in the prior art that would suggest that it would be obvious to somebody of ordinary skill or the art or it was loose on the inner roller it was it was not a fix to the enroll at all it was simply screwed into a line all and clearly that could provide movement and  so i think that one of the most important things i think to look at here is that both the judge and the examiner looked at the same prior art and one of them concluded that it was the same thing and one concluded that it was and i think that an absolute minimum went to trial judge says that no reasonable juror could find a certain thing there making a finding of fact and in this case the world looked at it and thought it was valid or not invalid right in this case the the trial court looked at the same prior art that the examiner looked at i'm not saying that there are no circumstances under which the trial court can't make an invalid finding what i'm saying though is that the court didn't look at the fact that the well is the pivot point which is very different i think that all of the other prior art which did products that had been that that would have infringed that had been ballots have been purchased from public so there was no evidence that if i had purchased them from other entities  movement the reason the district court didn't consider that as the reply brief on appeal is the first time anyone has made that argument in this case so we don't believe that argument is partly before the court at all  rollers that are supported sort of towards the middle so that the ends are free to move in pits under pressure that's what provides uniform pressure at the net that's the point of the bush patent that's the point of franklin and that's the point  record that suggests that the inner bolt moved the whole point of the mounting means in bush which is what we're talking about is that it secures the outer shell to the inner shell so that if the tube functions there is council makes this argument that somehow there's movement on the inside but there's nothing in the record that suggests that that's true and in fact if that were true i suspect the roller wouldn't stay together we're talking about really long rollers and some of these rollers are five metres long so you know that this is just an argument that they're inventing there's no record evidence that the boys device was intended to sort of slip and slide on the inside it's intended to create a mount a hard point that acts as a falcon just like the you know set and set and are proof discuss a number of other patents with slightly different kinds of welds where people have used metal rollers with different pieces some of which overlap but are not supported so that pressure makes them move in and take a different shape under pressure that that's the solution that's being dr here there's nothing new about the old seventy six patent in that regard and there's no conflict in the evidence here the the evidence they propose and summary judgment we don't disagree with it's obvious that a screw in a well are not literally the same thing it's obvious that if you don't apply see you don't have the risk of a kneeling but those obvious facts don't relate to the technology issue and balancing blood is to balance otherwise they just got a patent on love and we know the district court didn't make up the staff an issue it's verbatim the definition that the inventor himself proposed to the examiner when the examiner made exactly this a structure which is intended to balance the eyes left at so the district court applied not only the plain meaning of the word bouncing one but the actual meaning the literal definition that was provided during the prosecution history and as the court found it would up the entire prosecution history if they were allowed to get a patent on a specific law first is it purpose and then claim infringement based on any law whether or not we used it to balance then they just have a patent on love which you know if you look at that shape  make kids love letters and they have those little hands it's exactly that shape right it's just to see shape to hold anything they offer no definition before this court or before the district court that gives meaning to the word balancing the best they can do is say well a thing loud that strips the word balancing out of the definition and that would be true even without the prosecution history but here just as in springs window fashion just as in computer docking station there is a specific statement repeated statements by the very clear on the definition in the prosecution history in order to distinguish prior art that had been the basis for rejection and they can't walk away from that if the parents know of the questions i think  few things first of all with regard to the comment by counsel that there was nothing in the record about moonbeam and such just not accurate the components expert testify or in his report stated that wells between the inner and outer tubes required by the zero seven six patent claims function in a dual fashion first they function as a normal weld to connect the inner an hour to t second they function as a pivot point about which the outer two complex in a fashion depicted in particular because of that solid a three twenty two and twenty three of the record of so it was mentioned but i think that the analogy is very similar to what we're talking about here and the fact that the dimensions and configured to do a