issues presented in this case one he'd won gave it holds or st told infringement issue and two validity that is whether the tyco docking station anticipated the day at the power pole it was right on both issues and the the time plate proximate to two opposite ends so the claim doesn't say that the outermost holes must be elongated told it doesn't say that only one gated holes are in the end region it doesn't say that he landed it also at the edges or near  the specification uses the phrase at least to describe the location of the elongated hole that appendix that the eight column two lines twenty eight and forty eight appendix sixty count five line three through thirteen so when you use the phrase at least you're showing that not all the elongated holes need to be in the end region and that nd holes are the not any longer hole can be located in the end region as well so tha and there you would do as knowledge instructed you look to the specification the prosecution history and the present and what the understanding of those skills in the art with think about how to define a term of degree and here for example the commission's opinion at this court indefiniteness cases is that patent terms must be considered in the context of the intrinsic connected to collectors rather than in abstract and isolation and here the idea that there must be a bright line boundary defining and region is a lie by the fact that a person of ordinary skill with understand that the problem of the family expansion is a matter of degree i mean all the normal expansion may be most pronounced at the edges the intervenor said it also occurs throughout the entire plate even to a lesser degree in the center that that what is the kind of post distinction between a contact leg which completes an individual circuit and other kinds of conductive legs like grounding legs which make a common ground not an individual circuit that's what he said appendix thirty four dollars that the two that the ground the ground or here we have a case where on one hand he is arguing for a very broad instruction with spector infringement accusing the commission of importing limitation and then the other hand with the get the patient tirade of the intrinsic record especially the specification here that the problem to be solved in the prior art is the cracking issue the cracking on the end of the time place at the solder joints the contact l that they argue for you have to have that necessary feature of putting out that is the time plate the folds of the longest shape this is consistent with this court's precedent in tektronix and the law where we similarly have this criticism of the prior art necessary feature distinguishing prior art and you have the full complement of the specifications illustrations and body movements all because trading th necessary feature characterized the invention that was necessary feature and also supported by the prosecution history here where again we have that for us lee overcoming the markets at the patient by disclosing that their own proposed structure for contact legacy twenty six words and is simply no support in the record for the twenty six were definition for contact leg a leg must complete individual electrical circuits but connected to a counterpart connected and thereby making a connection closer to the edge than any nd all i didn't hear anything in their argument attempting to reconcile their positions apparently to absurdities of the government to use someone to copy or play exactly but a single circular hole in each outer host edge and