of the axial length wise contact which is in thirteen and here's another fine construction issue that we believe the board got wrong and saying i reside around just means in the vicinity of or near is this another little picking between one dictionary definition over the other without looking at the context of the patent and so i don't think it's a reasonable construction and in that case i'm not sure that they would differ though as i understand your proposal you're saying it ha that but it doesn't go completely around right those don't know and then they also are not up this particular configuration which isn't but it is the other figures twenty three and twenty six it's sometimes referred to it looks like a milk and a little bit and it actually goes around the outside of the body and that's what's critical about these claims this is not contracting between the knot and the post it goes around the  portion of the body without what is your response to their kind redgrave's argument that already even if we accept your proposition that it has to and circle as long as it doesn't have to answer completely you've got and so in the meat there's not a problem with that or its construction and the immediate vicinity of or near that doesn't even require contact that could be just in the air it's a could be inside outside a so it can't be outside because the proportion i don't think reside around given that it has to contact can mean that it needs to be somewhere in the some of the oh look there has to be contact and that's what is there in the rest of the clan so to say reside around means somewhere i think that that the portion of that relates to contact is already in the client so you basically be giving the meaning to that to the term reside around and it is a distinguishing feature of this particular environment that it actually is on the external portion and reason right resides around the outside of the body it is that figure twenty three and twenty six somebody meant and the to leave it another way so that it couldn't contact anywhere there because it's been modified and it goes partially around the and it's also one of the reasons you say you don't have to in a completely normal home but they have all the other uses of the word around which are admittedly in different contexts you're talking about the shielding it or not but every time it uses the word reside and i have no doubt you've done the same thing every time it uses the word resides it uses it with we are or that's right here or approximate to the heat and it never uses the word resides when it uses the work around proximate location as opposed to the circumference will location yes and so that's support it combines those two words and that's why we're here i think you're right and so the word residing on its own and when they say however thin it shows that they're not actually applying the construction there's no evidence that an arbitrarily thin ring would not have some length wise dimension on the axis and around with that i went to the dictionary and there were seven different definitions and it picked the seventh one down even though the first one would support p p c as proposed construction right with all reasonable definitions and patent and what is claimed and what the specifications described right yes but is there anything where there is just where cyst hang it out there and and if there isn't contact or it isn't and circle to some extent that that you can point to me in the that's what you actually say verbatim in your brief in several places and that struck me as very strange in a situation where there are twenty five claims and more than twenty disclosed in by him meaning where there are reasonable definitions that you can choose from it would be inappropriate to read out of the claim and embodiment where you're using a reasonable definition for the term around in fact their own use is your claim construction can't it because i've never actually heard this one before but maybe it makes sense is your can and whenever there is more than one definition the one that covers the most number of environments should be selected i think in this particular case yes because it clearly was not excluded through the use of or weren't they could have used surround even though many of those figures you pointed to like figure five which would be excluded it would be excluded in any way because of other limitations for example there the contact was with the inside of the body member and not the outside well how about the embodiments where the contact is actually it's located a cutting member resides between the post and the nut so it's not even with the external body i mean a lot of those  iments are read out of claim ten cannot possibly be covered by claim ten because of other limitations within claim ten so why should i necessarily then create a construction of one word within claim to and that would cover a portion of that environment even broadest reasonable construction certainly those other embodiments would not fall within the scope of the core and i shouldn't strain to find a reasonable construction that would necessarily cover them because of the one element when they're clearly not contemplated as being covered by that claim because there are other elements which unquestionably they fail is that a reasonable way to think about it we want time with the question i'm not sure i'm following the question suppose there are two reasonable interpretations ye particular element when it's clear that those environments are not meant to be covered by that claim because of the other elements i shouldn't strain to choose a broader one just because well in that construction one of the elements o  i'm struggling a little bit with the question if there are limitations in the claim that would exclude in a body meant you clearly should not construe the claim to encompass that not only that i shouldn't worry about the terms in the claim and be reading them with an eye towards whether that term would include portions that portion of that and by the memory that environment is now off the table if it's clear that that environment is not contemplated as being covered by claim ten and i don't really need to pay attention to that environment when considering the language of claim to do why i'm i think think you do i think you have to look at the use of different terms to define different configurations and relationships between fear of the continuity member and the funny i think that the language can inform and then it can inform absolutely yes absolutely but so there are eleven uses around in this specification and every one of implies surrounding encircling and with the exception of the one use of a round which speaks to figure thirty five why isn't mr jakes right that when it says around in a young like fashion that it's like saying partially around partially around if the word around does mean if one of its definitions is surround you can certainly say partially around implying partially surrounding so if you look at that figure figure thirty five and we have this on to twenty five of our brief that should here shows that those spring members are actually outside of the plane of the base portion of the continuity member there so even under their definition it's not in circling believe the lie or are sure rounding it's outside of the plane it's not by claim ten is that what you're i think and i'm not sure that figure thirty five was used to show an embodiment that had to be covered or not i think the purpose of using figure sky in the way that they would like the claim interpret it whether it be surrounding or in circle i don't remember of a plane or limitation either new i mean i think that's what they're saying if you look at a then just putting the continuity member on the and have the body would meet their definition if that's what they're saying that wouldn't because it would be in circles in the same line but it's not in the same plane i don't understand if it's off the end of the body how is it in circling the body these spring members that are referred to here as being around the continuity member are not in the same plane as as base portion of the continuity member that's the purpose of that argument it's to show that a round is not limited to certain rounding or in circle line because here where they talk about the spring members being around they don't in circle or surround the base portion of the continuity a they do it in a being game like fashion so that a modification of the work early modify the definition of around it if those spring members are around then that would be no different than putting the continuity member on the face the front face of the body because those spring members are not in the same plane or in circling or surrounding the base portion of the continuity but that still wouldn't be the same as having it just nearby right that's right but our point is a round is not limited to surround or in circle we're sleeve like that that's been our point all along that the definition is broader and they use it in a broader context in their sp n what about the the fact that the board relied on language from the preamble to its basically for a claimed difference in differentiation analysis without having made any conclusions as to whether the limit applied i think what the word was saying was that their construction is consistent with the terms that are used in the c meaning that having a broader definition of a round is appropriate because when p p c want something to surround another object they say so well that's an after the fact effort to try to say what the borg did isn't it i mean that's not what the boards that i think that's what they were getting at when they referenced the terms around which appears in the claims which are under appeal that it's their construction is consistent with they weren't reference in the words around in any other claim they were referencing it in the preamble of the claim they were looking at which is a problem when they didn't find that the preamble was limited going to anyway i don't think that's a problem at all for them to still use that as evidence that they meant something different when they use the term around isn't there three general rule that the elements of the claim are consistent with in fact the preamble i mean isn't there some general rule of law that suggests that the reader should be if there is that because i guess the point i'm making is when you're talking about the preamble which if nothing else that's not the purpose of the invention and if they use a different word in the preamble than the body in fact if anything i would think we would unlike normal statutory construction if it's all part statute or the plain construction if it's in an alternative element the point of the body is to give life and meaning that the preamble the whole thing self so you would think that if anything we should construe the different words consistently because the meaning to the actual stuff that comes after understood they turn it around unlike in the case that people see cites in their brief symantec case unlike that case where the court found that they didn't want to give different meanings to words in the preamble because it would vitiate the meaning of terms and the body of the claim here that's not the situation at all that the surround term and the claims in this case are dealing with the relationship of different components of a cable the around term she or is dealing with the relationship between the continuity member and the body so the surround does not dictate that iran has to be the same thing because we're talking about different things so your argument in response to me if i understand it is if when they used the words around in the preamble to be talking about the continuity member and this might be along the lines of what i was suggesting yes they are actually using the words around to talk about whole different what surround as modified when mr jack stood up the first place where he started is something that i think you ought to address which is that how can you have a definition of near or in the vicinity  really preclude almost all of the year so if you're looking at the terms in a claim and we're looking at the term just around we want to give that a reasonable definition if there are some other terms in the coining that require the connection that you're talking about we look at those terms to require that connection but it's not excluding touching it's the same rational will reside around or in circle the inside part or portion of the body p p c can explain why that doesn't meet the claim limitations even describe as a continuity member that the only portion of that continuity member that touches the post is the radio edge and that continuity page thirty four know of corning's brief and in column thirteen of the parent and it is explicitly explained that that contact when the inner arm and a young one young like fashion around the continuity member i think you have to take all that into account when you're the figure in what it's describing so around there means partially around and it may not be in the same plane but it can and circle the post or the continuity member at least in part