sliding door you need groups of those but those are in the reference describing the sliding will shoot but there are other structures unrelated to the sliding door such as the race wall that there was a dispute about that the district court ignored another structure that is unrelated to the sliding door would be the the aperture that surround briefing they actually made no mention of a surrounds limitation at all anywhere and it was only at the appellate level where they they brought in a new argument saying that surround means the same fitting but it's clear that aren't on a space by the plain meaning of the two terms that they're not the same further it they didn't complete the analysis for the entire limitation where to where it forms the storage compartment i speakers only an argument there was that claim sixteen the recessed itself is too shallow to to meet the ordinary understanding of a side of a wall it's less than half a millimeter and although there is appreciation on the part frame of the stowaway the position is arbitrary it's it's closer to the other end of the opportunity other end of the heart frame than it is to the upshur and it doesn't even follow along the same shape as the bound relationship between the profusion and the boundary of the aperture other than general proximity but along is not the same it's near zero there was a genuine dispute over these two limitations and claim fourteen but instead the district court used hindsight to say that even if the elements weren't were weren't there in the prior art it would just be obvious to a proce to try to move it there so it does but the  in claim ten there's a stowaway or there is a depression for easy access to the item stored within the storage compartment and the still only does not teach that depression denotes that these are two separate structures and cannot be the same structure of the way that i speak or has been claiming district court said that it was unclear about whether the stowaway meet the limitation of easy access at depression and therefore claim tents limitation was such that satisfied when the district court said in saying that it was unclear about it should have looked to the specification for clarification of this vague term which is what it was either would have done but the district court did not do this instead it relied on its layperson understanding and ignored the specification and drawings which speak and they point the district court lawson that they come in three pieces they have soft case of hard hard structure of some sort on the outside and and some sort of sliding cover or storage and and it's a phone case and it has storage and that's pieces for a phone case and still somehow managed to have a structure that was slam compact and then also a hidden compartment  and this was unexpected because when you think of putting of raised wall onto the surface of a structure you would think not the interpretation that i speaker and the district court give about race while reid's raised out of the claim leaving only wall by saying that a race wall in the side of a depression are essentially the same thing they take meaning out of were the word racist the pattern includes words like recess indentation depression throughout for various structures but only uses raised for the walls the patentee could easily used the word depression or the storage compartment if you had so intended but he didn't intentionally use the word raised raised walls for that element and that has that should have me the district court was really fixated on this being simple technology and it was so simple that you know all the combinations of modifications i needed to be made were also simple but simple technology doesn't mean that this is simple engineering or simple invention and it doesn't mean that you can ignore the claim limitations which have structural meaning and which depart from the prior art  zito was defined as somebody who has a bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering and one to two years of experience in working in the industry and while that's not an incredibly high level of education and experience i but the district court ignored all the distinctions about the terms in the prior art and red raised out of the claim leaving and just said that while these are just changes in in elevation that are obvious relative to their oppression there's a raised wall relative to the raised wall there's a depression nothing in the claims require anything different and all that playing to that the appellant has done over and over again is well this is what we think the claims mean there's something very important can missing in a palin sal's analysis here and before the district court and that's a claim construction on appeal there are three terms for which the a claim construction grooves sliding means and comprises grooves those are the only three issues none of those touch upon any of the issues for your honour's to deal with here today instead these are the terms that the appellant has said make their their claims different but without telling us why what they need giving us an analysis based on played nori meaning the specification the prosecution history anything at all those terms include frame raised wall snugly fitting within our side opposite side depression it goes on and on for none of those those plaintiffs want to put pen to paper and say here's what we think these claims mean and there's an important reason for that absence from their briefing it hurts them on infringement on every one of those issues now a key one is snugly fitting infringement contentions about what they think snugly fitting me and what outside and it's the same exact image that they provide for the other claim there refers to the out the aperture being our round on top of were away from every single one of the suppliers and raised walls in the accused product and this court has said over and over again if you are going to take an incredibly broad view of your claims for infringement that also must be stuck with you for purposes of validity that's what the appellant has done here and a great case on this from just last year was  one communique lab versus citrix eighty nine f rd seven thirty five dollars and what the court said is a defendant is permitted to argue that if a claim term must be broadly interpreted to read  then this same broad construction will be on the prior art what they've done in each instance is take very minor details and said well those are our claims and that's why the prior is not good and in each example what they've also done is for purposes of infringement affectively read that requirement out of the claim in order to have any basis to proceed on infringement now the district court here based on the liturgy of the claims did not reach the issue of infringement and that that's fine for all purposes here today but that does not mean that this court should ignore the positions that the plaintiffs took below and the appellant is still doing here it cannot be that somewhat near which is what they have for infringement of snuggly fitting is good enough and they did that in both claim fourteen and in claim two is good enough but when it comes to validity no it's got to be touching and it's got to be touching the outside serves that's not how the litigation is supposed to go it's a game it's a game for the appellant to see how far they can go before they get caught in one side of the other of their analysis and it should stop here there's no reason to send it back for us to again discuss these minor modifications which they harp on when all of them are within the prior art as a whole and it does not going back to chaos r s i was very clear we look at the scope and content of the prior below each and every limitation was addressed for the most part if you go to the statement of undisputed facts in their response those issues were not were admitted for claim three for a thank for claim for her claim five there was one issue about whether it was supporting and again based on claim construction for claim eight admitted for claim ten the only argument and one of them the only argument raised was whether the depression and raised wall  were the same or different and also whether or easy access was provided well this was addressed at oral argument and what i said there but i'll say here is if you made the depression a little bit narrower it would hold the card tighter and that would provide for less easy access it's a relative term yes of course you could always make access harder the depression makes it easier as structure relative to what it would otherwise be this is not rocket science  for claim thirteen there is no dispute this is just about the materials used for claim seventeen no dispute just requires para grooves for claim nineteen is basically the same as claim three in taishan complements admitted it's in the prior art and long recess and jews ins claim twenty two dollars directly in the prior are admitted undisputed in the statement of facts if you go through the statement facts you will see that basically every limitation other than the few mentions here were undisputed in the record and the sole question was under k s r with those undisputed elements and  having gone through it identified in detail the differences we talked about the ordinary scale which is relatively low and then there's no dispute and that judge carter below found that the technology is very simple what he said was as a matter of law which is what obviousness is based on there's no issue here that requires jury intervention requires a jury to decide what's a raised law what's of depression there's no real dispute and there's no claim construction under which a dispute would be raised the last issue under k s r is secondary considerations on appeal there was a thick stack of information provided to the court supposedly showing secondary considerations one big problem with all of that evidence was it was submitted after all but claim fourteen was already were already invalidate they didn't tell you that but that's an important fact you cannot supplement the record after decision made is made and say ok here's our secondary considerations now that we've lost none of that material goes to claim fourteen at all  and finally the heavy bulky not slim you can read the claims all you want front to back back to front none of that stuff is in the claims and that's what we're supposed to be here discussing that's what  patent that's what the ownership interest is that's what they assert that's what we have to defend when you read limitations in the claim from the specification we all know that's improper we all know that that's not a claim construction is done even if they had done claim construction instead we're just looking at high level differences that they say are between the prior art and their preferred embodiment in their commercial product and throughout the process below door lots of prior art showed both and in fact the appellant admitted that there was there was a reason at the time that someone would have had to use a sliding door instead of a hinged door so as opposed to in most cases are cases that's the crux of the issue would someone have had a reason to or that's not even where the fight is unless there are any other those terms and i think that we had sufficiently outlined them in in our summary judgment brief says well but we have we don't believe meant by saying that the that the routes and rails can only slide in a vertical fashion when the specification clearly states that they can go horizontally yes well and that and the drawing in figure structures i speak or it says that these are just minor structures but they're not minor structures they are they they are structures that when taken together with the independent claims provide to the the invention the benefits that we've talked about about being slim and compact and lightweight and having this hidden storage compartment what i speakers doesn't seem to really talk about the scope and content of the prior art was highly disputed and so therefore it's summary judgment should not have been granted in this case and i speak compartment though simply don't exist in the prior art and i speaker doesn't point to them didn't point to them in that summary judgment and doesn't point to them here either at appeal the district or simply ignored that those prior art elements did not exist or that those claimant imitation did not exist in the prior art and the district court ignored that that i speak or didn't have any evidence to support prove that the inverse i speaker needed to show have show evidence that the prior art did actually to fill the satisfy the claim limitations  and it did not here and the district court ignored that there were disputes over the race wall over structures related to the race wall and  it was it's precisely for the reasons that this court should reverse