each and every structure as is disclosed in the specification this court has consistently held that the means plus function limitation should not be limited to the most specific structure that's just closed when there's more than one structure disclos specification still has to be struck from the rather than just repetition of the means plus function statements in the claim so certainly does have to be a structure and here we have two structures that were disclosed both in the written description and in the claims and the claims as the original claims as filed are part of the specification under section one twelve a paragraph six you look to the specification and that includes the claims under this court's opinion docile and just the plain language extending outwardly from the fabric cover later at line thirty five it says here the annual or seal does not make contact with the suspension sleep that's just this is the structure it's in and it's a ring shape seal the go between the  someone put a prosthesis to the residual limb sometimes they just shoved shims around where there are gaps to make a seal that wouldn't be an annular seal that's an example of a situation where you wouldn't have arranged a seal court construe the annual list the structure in this case and are still structured to be a narrow or a change or shape sealed with a smooth surface and those are additional limitations of the don't appear anywhere in well here in the specification it just says that it may be made of the same material as the liner so there is no requirement to have that particular size or shape or made of that certain type of material and we also have to claim that the plain language  figures and descriptions from something that was outside the four corners especially cation we would say that is not permissible in the sports person and at now for example this court said that you look only to what's disclosed in the specification application and said that that was a structure and then compare that to so for application to the actual post we reject your incorporation i mean your your client is the one who incorporated both this court cases in the means plus function context are very clear that you only import the structures are necessary to perform the function that corresponds to the means for a function that would haitians here that function is just maintaining a that the title of paper in the incorporated by reference document could use yes your honor you certainly did say the title and here the title of  or it does but this court's decision in that amount would say that you still then couldn't actually go back and look to the what's actually disclosed to seven for application what we have here is the district court actually looked at figures that aren't it wouldn't make sense in that situation to them say that you could look back to anything the party change and incorporate that by reference and have that be part of the part of the specification but if it's under ad now it seems that if the patentee is limited that that's the case with respect to a structure that would be disclosed under program six or section one twelve yes the incorporation by reference out things that are outside the scope of the specification can then be used if you get the benefit at the statements and then they looked at the article cited and said well person of ordinary skill in the arts could make that could and could then a file structure from that statement that's precisely the same situation that we have we have here well there are three related issues that i think are that touch upon the the court's question this one of these are helpful here that might add a little bit of color a little bit of information that might help the court in reaching its decision he was always been pardon me we appreciate your column today as the as a litigator below i want to discuss first a little bit about what happened with the district court as as just lawyer mentioned this is not a summary judgment or trial this is  injunction what happened below well the key argument here on appeal is focused on saying the district court judge abused his discretion by not looking at the claims the originally filed claims that's that's that's  box argument now where was that argument made if you go back and you look at the original record the motion that was presented to put into motion presented by buy out a box no mention at all of the original claims in fact if you look type of case and i could cite i can cite the the record here for your orders mr martin's declaration is at eighty six zero eight two a six seven six and these pages i'm showing you are from a six twenty eight six twenty one these looks at the issue that's being raised here which is can you look at an original claim to construe the claim but that's exactly what they're trying to do here want to construe the line is that as the structure of the first one the the policy under one twelve six is always certainly look at other points who finds me lines of least that's them that's true you're wrong but when you're looking at one twelve six you're always looking at something other than the claims of self and that's that the quid pro quo the policy or is your claim under one twelve six you claim functionally the statute says the claim should be construed to cover the corresponding structure material acts in the specification  well your honor that's exactly the section that we pointed to which discusses which discusses delavan one forty in figures seventeen eighteen and twenty the discussion here that that that dr gordon expert looked at twenty and then go to look at those figures and here you are still one forty that's exactly what mr martin auto box expert did when he initially identified structure built in his declaration that fifty percent of the district court he pointed exactly to those same figures of course in our opposition we did the same thing we said let's look at the structure that's disclosed  possible material so if if you go through and you look not only at the movie papers you look at the opposition again the the issue was ok what is the structure disclose the reason judge carney denied the motion wasn't because of judge carney abused his discretion when the motion was presented to the corporation by reference was assumed to be of course that's what the structure is you look at you look at the autobots moving papers the analysis and you look at the reply brief it doesn't even show up in out of box reply brief nowhere do they say oh let's throw those pictures out they again rely upon that same disclosure and that a lot of people that come to this court and they say judge which is atmel is a very limited holding it was a third party reference it was something that was that was not part of the intrinsic file intrinsic record here of third party reference is different then the prosecution history of the pat  self and the particular reference that was made to the corporate represent was made here was part of the family and it was in the chain and it's on the face of the patent so the public has access to that the public knows exactly what the document is it's in the family and so it's like  you should have figured this out in the parties they've been arguing and it's a it's a it's a stretch it takes at no one to blows it up the word doesn't make any sense at all when parties normally incorporate by reference they normally do look at karen applications to corporate language of the of the statute it does try to dismiss it very clear you distinguish the claims from the specification you want to true the claims in light of something other than the claims you take that you take the argument out of arkansas making and they're basically saying if you're for if you file you they're both limitations say means so the presumption is that there once was six there is no structure in the claims if i think feel is not a structure still exists as a under the policy of one twelve six certainly the the for the last fifty plus years the precedent this court the practice of of all practitioners is to say when you look at a claim this one twelve six how do you of those claims with that was not what was what it was invented you look at what was invented it was a very specific seal even mr martin acknowledges these are the solutions to the problems that he points to the specific fields that were the solution to the problem  look at what was the solution of the problem for the pumps this was a solution to the problem that's what he invented that's what they're entitled to cover or not entire discover anything that performs a function if you look at even up the reply brief here from from from a box essentially their argument is as long as you have something that performs the function you want french as long as you have something that's annular that performs the ceiling function you would cringe as long as you have something that's weighed actuated that maintains  response thank you your honor first with respect to the point where they argue that we we didn't raise that with respect to the more traditional martin declaration the two seven four application was referred to as prior art references that they were put in the declaration it wasn't relied upon in the declaration as it as structures that were going to meet the structure of the we actually did that to pump and when osu or then went on its opposition brief below to argue paragraph one through six and said the specification both includes a written description and it includes claims and then in that case when the court want to look to see whether or not there was a sufficient structure the court explicitly said that it was going to go and the plans themselves these are not mere reputations repetitions of the same structure the claims say it's not the end of the seal or foreign back to the specification it's written description column thirteen but it says an english feel it says a whit actually a vacuum pump so in that situation it's an independent structure this court in the intel case in the s three case has looked at generic type structures and says of those are sufficient to just mis read this specification when it looked at when it looked at what a nail or seal it is said that it was a narrow band it said that it was a rectangular cross section it said it was a smooth surface annular seal all of those things are found