were teen fifteen nor group incorporated versus actual straight commission on the panel has decided that it will allow the visual aids that are sought to be used to be used we recognize that the actual visual way that is going to be used is not an item that was in evidence however we view it as as councils attempt to illustrate further arguments made in the or something that the clamp attaches to in the specification and the claims there are basically two functions for this flange that the clamp attaches to the  is is that it contains a port and this is found the column three of the port goes all the way through this flange and is the method which the compressed air which is usually what's in these devices also called fluid gets from one device to another typically there are apps ours and else filters regulators and lubricates really don't have much time how about if we jump right to the language dispute rather than getting a tutorial because we all read the patent we read the poker history we know how it works actually this is one of the few cases where a simple would have been helpful to me honestly something i could have played with and figured out  but nonetheless i think i got there on my own so why don't we jump right to the itc's conclusion that the flange is only that portion which is received into the clamp and how they've construe that in particular not to include the entire what i would describe as shaded portion notice twenty six and thirty but rather only a subset of that whole portion and that seems to be one of your key arguments and so if you don't mind can we jump right to that absolutely i'd like to refer to this exhibit here which shows figures three and four and as you can see we've colored in rad what has been described as items twenty six and thirty and column three can see the flags the whole thing goes out which is twenty four to the point where there's an interface between the two faces of the planet so there's more that is just within right and where they get that is from two parts one is in the prosecution history where talks about fitting over and if we could put out the off on this really refers to a distinction in the prior  but wait hold on are you now focusing sure jumping around a bit or you know focusing on the sentence in which the applicant says that their invention disclose and the prosecution history that the statement was made to overcome or distinguished from and i'm probably going to pronounce them wrong but i don't think this is either of them and meyer and abs there i am i pronouncing them right as best you can that in either of those instances doesn't seem critical for you to distinguish your claim on the basis that the client fits over the flanges that doesn't seem to be something which would have gotten you out too much credence to this sentence or do you think they construed wrongly the language of the sentence are you arguing that yeah we said this but we didn't need to say this to overcome this and therefore it shouldn't be held clashes with in the structures being joint instead of outside of that that's the first thing the second point i would make as far as an error there is that even if you assume that the clamp  but if you're going to move to the for project rooms tell me explain to me do you need to win both of these arguments to overcome the non infringement determination each independently or if suppose i were to agree with you completely on the two of the sockets on the top in the bottom the top is flat the bottom projects out but it doesn't have a lip and i think mr new staff is going to show you some actual examples so that the entire that aside for one more minute but they also held that the clamp must fit over the front of the flange and that's why they made that weird cut in the picture saying it's only this much and they didn't get take that out of because at that point it's still infringers because the only difference between the infringing device and what's ascribing the patent if you take the itc's interpretation is projections on all four sides road to the whole thing is contained within the are you all appealing the first prong if it's not necessary for the decision of infringement because it seemed to me that there was kind of a leap in logic by the able j i t see between the completely enclosed within the clamp idea and the for project threats i could never get there and so i was confused about that leap of logic and so i included both of those because i don't think either is correct but in any great unless it has set for projecting rooms divided up your time you're taking eight minutes and mr newstead has seven minutes is that correct that's right ok that's correct thank you very much if i make a point out with respect to home and what you're what you're hearing the argument about the fit over is it is actually that related to the construction of the phrase for sort of generally rectangular a clamp they're clearly appealing the claim construction the i t c relied on the prosecution history statement as part of its decision making in construing the claim so why is that statement and how it should be construed in the context of construed the flinch as necessarily fitting entirely with in the vertical parameters of the clip and so as such i think that it clearly is part of the analysis the i t c u i don't see your distinction but i don't want to waste all your time on it so can i ask you first yes i'm confused we have appeal of two claim terms we have this plan being received into the clamp language on the one hand then we have the four rims the pilipinas just asserted that if we were to agree with them when the four remains then it's irrelevant how we feel about the whether or not the flange needs to be entirely within the clamp that they still win and you can trust that because i normally only have a knot infringement up here and there are two different bases that have been found by a lower court we can't just overturn one of them in the people automatically when we usually have to overturn them both of them and so i'd love to hear you speak to this i agree your honor it would require over turning both the concept of how the clamp is reason that plant is received into the clamp and it would require overturning this notion of the projecting rams the i wouldn't so quickly jump over the projecting rims though if i may i know that we haven't talked much about that but if your honor were inclined or considering the appellant's position on that i would urge you that that the the administrative law judge got it absolutely correct the notion that th spec where in the claims wherein the prosecution street is the word limit there a tell you and it's it's an excellent question it's a fundamental question this isn't even just importing limitations you spec into the claim because if the mutation structurally don't exist anywhere in the history of th plant and as nor grant itself argued in this very case when it originally brought the case of flange is commonly and ordinarily considered projecting ram that's what  only two sides of the rectangle but that would be it but that's not a flange that's not a rectangular flange that's the whole concept that the player is that which which the clamp in this case grabs on to and it's that space we can grab behind it and so if you're going to have a rectangular flange you necessarily talking about having killed the board let anybody grab onto simply not true because even under your definition your i and have that be a rectangle plagued with the flinches necessarily more than what you're trying to convince me which is just the ribs it is the port to the center to have the port you therefore must have a rectangle around the poor you must absolutely and apparently i'm not doing a good job persuading you but that that's very fundamental and i think so i would actually go right to the claim language i would start there i think there are other provisions in the claim which are likely languages the word rectangular you think in implies for grimm's well you know it's not terribly bad for the pattern has all sorts of corrections and it's on the corrections page eighty one fifty seven in fact this was this was a product of an amendment that the whole thing was tossed claim one through eight on indefiniteness grounds including that the examiner couldn't figure out plain language is fully supportive of that is there any other language that you would point to where i think the other language in the in the claim does provide context which which language would you say brings in a limitation of four grams that must include plans your honor i think the the generally adapted to where i mean they're consistent with that with that exact notion and we haven't even gotten to the specification which i guess appellee town so i don't know if i've already had my time will do it if you want to of mysteries but either way i can i can continue with the with the with the plain language or go right to the specification where are well but if you're on of the adapt i don't want to leave you hanging the notion that the  in the spec four rims why do you why should i construe the claim is limited to four rims you're going to take me to the spec and show me where it makes clear that the clinton the claim is limited to four rounds but when i just don't have that so far so i'm giving yes your honor yes you are and that the correction is a correction there was a i don't know what some clerical error but bad language of the generally rectangular is what was at that was originally  in and then describe the other council because abs and efrem are i'm saying it wrong but those two references didn't show rectangle rectangular flanges they were oddly shaped both of them i looked at them but they weren't generally rectangular that's right  to have that joint that pivoting right that's exactly right i'm sorry i misunderstood was three zero but see you've got i'm sorry six minutes no we've had a number of questions from the panel you've gone six minutes out the claim term that you were referring to that was the restriction why there is no infringement is generally rectangular ported flange a generally rectangular  fingernail behind it there's a space here and because there's a space here that's the north of us yes this is the northern device the rectangle and then do two arguments in the court rather than speaking about sides of a rectangle they started talking about projections it is not really a projection what you're talking about is the side of a just one really i'm in a rectangular shape right but you don't necessarily have to have the bottom of the rectangle for example where the top pivots doesn't necessarily need to have either the groove in the pivotal top or necessarily need to have rectangle you've got to have something that is rectangular shape you still have something that's rectangular shape and it's still clear and if it has projections but it doesn't have to have a projection on every side it will need a projection on every side because otherwise you will end up with something like this this would not be rectangular because you're missing a somewhat well no the side would be flush so it would not have a projection it would just be flush with so that when the lid came on into it it came flat it didn't this and if you were to then fill in this space here then the portion that's a fly and use only the you shape portion because now it's no longer flying and because you can't get anything behind it and i ask you to explain to me i'm still confused by morgan's council's suggestion that we only if we disagree on the four rims limitation then we reverse because they're going to succeed on infringement i'm trying to understand do they not need and can you explain to me did they not need to prevail in both the reception in two and the four room limitations in order i think they need to prevail on both but that's only because they're not well defined the case was really tried on a generally rectangular ported flange and the fit over was an argument that came about not from us trying to insert a limitation into the claim because we were saying ours does not have this rectangular you put that in there if if you didn't have to put it in there it doesn't matter you put it in there there is no doct claiming it's been thrown out on fast so whatever it is this is what you chose to claim you chose to claim a generally rectangular ported way and you needed that rectangle in there and that means space behind the shaded portion under sure the the flange and the connector are designed together one fits into the other the claim was the lead was directed to the connector so it talks about a connector  adapted to receive a generally rectangular flange so you could certainly would maybe i'll take something that has a weird science or something and maybe i'll just put it in there but that isn't what the claim was talking about the claim is talking really the meaning of applying in this field over and i want to that we had in there just came up because people started talking about projections but there really wasn't any thought at all describing anything other than this  infringement can't be based upon that particular limitation no because we don't know as i say that this talking about projections in fit really only relates to the fair shake as i understand  man hopefully my math is right natalie even it out all right whatever i guess it is soon as the panel has no more question probably done anyway so if i might if i could just on it with the accused clamp on it well he was showing us the nordman device this is similar says one of the exhibits from the hair i know what i mean i just so we're clear me he was mr newstead shows two things he showed us the first the got projections onto the size in the top it's somewhat flat one minute ledges out on the bottom and then here you can see that they're clamp those totally include the part if you where where free flowing argument on all sides but is this is this is this part of the record this thing in the way i interpret the patent is consistent with figures three and four and the way they're described in the spec it's the extension that comes out from the body and are you telling them this is the accused device yes this is an accused regulator right one of the its opposite when the pivoting side is is tightened in it has chamfer or double edges crap binding ones that are on the flange and it squeezes the two faces together so you have a we believe that we have that in the in the appendix material ok but if you could just deliver the items to miss whitehall thank