referred to as the attachment surface needed to be secured to the phallus cover of the light fixture into which the apparatus is retrofit we submit that this construction was wrong for three reasons first nothing in the claim requires that the attachment surface of the out apparatus be secured to the ballast cover the claim expressly provides the attachment surface is in fact secured to another component of the device the elimination surface and there is no language in the claim supporting requirement that device that is configured to be secured to about cover in certain modes of operation but there is no basis to limit claim twelve to the disclosure of that argument but it has to be secured to something right i think the device should be security something to be installed the us well to accomplish the retrofit function correct right it has to be secured to something on the existing light so point as to anything  record as to what that something is other than the ballast i think the most needs to be secured to the fixture and which is being retrofit well i don't think the claim needs to recently how it is  all i thought we all agree that it has to be secured to something on the system like picture and you're just saying that we don't have to specify what that something is that something could be anything and everything and that doesn't make any difference to i think the district court and defend its construction reso limitation into that claim so i think the specification is important insofar as there is nothing in the specification supporting reading that requirement into the current there are two parts of the specification are think glee at that interview there was some discussion which raised someone twelve concerned and by the way it doesn't we don't have any clue whether it was indefiniteness enablement written description we have no clue if what even the nature of the one twelve concert may have  and by the way this district court said amendments made for nonhierarchical this can affect the scope of claim that's absolutely wrong as a matter of law right if you have to make a narrowing amend that for one talk purposes enablement or written description that absolutely affects doesn't matter here why the claims that we can see that there is nothing in the record beyond the fact that it was amended to resolve section one twelve issues the ceiling issue that there may in fact is that it took out the limitation that is key to this  and that's what this whole paragraph is about in where that fastening mechanism statement occurs in context and that's very different than the language this court has generally required to stablish disavowal such as offenders argue or an implied definition is not talking about the president vention is not talking about a future the must be present in all my audience is simply talking about the features of advice that are disclosed in the path and they are and there's no let me ask you a question yes that paragraph that but the point i was trying to make i could probably find some other example is that not every not every sentence in the summary of the invention is imported into every claim correct i think that is right now we different if it said in the present invention or in the good afternoon i'm a please the court my name is john hence i'm with maynard cooper in jail which means co counsel philip romer of the potter anderson farm i'd like to begin on talking about the amendment and a couple of different aspects the first would be that the amendment makes no sense makes no sense from a couple of different standpoints first there were no section one twelve rejections as the court has already recognized second there is not a single word of support for the amendment in the specification council cannot point to anywhere where the attachment surface is shown or described as being secured to the elimination surface no one knows why the man was made but it did not have the effect of changing what the invention is the invention is of course determined a skilled artisan read that and walk away with the understanding that i don't know what the examiners one twelve concerns were but the examiner has clearly put on record in this prosecution history that he is requiring a change to these claims for want of reasons yes that is certainly what the record shows but what we are not asking this court to do and did not ask the lower court to do is undo the change blackbird in their brief points out how both parties agreed down below all parties agreed what fastening mechanism would mean if it how this device how this claim invention is going to function as judges you recognize it has to attach to something it's what judge andrew said as well and if you step back and look at this from what the disclosure is you have two disclosures for apparatus one is where the claimed apparatus already has a ballast cover on it with all the other features you remove the ballast cover the existing fixture and you replace it with the kind apparatus that's claim one that's not at issue here claim twelve says you have this apparatus that you secure to the existing lighting apparatus that's retrofit how do you do that do you secure it with the l e d bulbs pointing up to the ceiling so that they can't be visible no you do it the other way you secure it by the attachment surface that's what it's for attaching the lights then point downward that's what figure five shows and we're not saying that figure five is a preferred embodiment you must incorporate and claim what we're saying is you look at the claim and look at the embodiments and look at the description and understand what that claim means and we recognize that there are cases this court decided that say the president bench and or other magic words are important i contend that because this pattern it is true if your honor were to look at that summary the first several paragraphs lined up with claim one next line up with some in to some dependent claims apart we're looking at in column two lines sixty five count three line seven is claimed twelve those words need to be given meaning and this invention needs i viewed in the flow not the rule of law is that having something in the summary of the bench and if all of our cases say it point two they don't point to the fact just that something in the summary of the bench and they point to the fact that in the the invention it says the essential element is the present invention includes they make it clear if all of those cases could have simply been resolved in the fact that this happened under the umbrella of the word summary of invention section then we wouldn't have needed  further and point out that they had very specific language which pulled that element into the claims there's no specific language or that does that i agree or honor and i believe pan practitioners understand that as well and i think few and far between are they now saying words like that when they're trying to get broad disclosures but in this case we believe that there is nothing first of all that supports the construction of blackbeard's is proposing i urge you to look for something that says how the fasting mechanism secures the attachment elimination surface the drawings don't show that the perverted body wants don't show it some are in the invention never explains it that construction cannot be correct but we're not here to talk about enablement and written description if we get remanded that will disclose it because it shows an illumination surface five thirty two when attachment surface five thirty and it shows that they are attached to each other so while the spec may not use those words doesn't that figured demonstrate those two surfaces being attached to each other they are two different sides of the housing they are not attached to each other by the faxing fastening mechanism which is what is required in clean twelve fastening mechanisms five thirty four i and the court ultimately construed fastening mechanism to mean fastener so we expect in your honor is on the right course we expect if we are reminded that blackbird is going to take the position that those two vertical lines which is the side walls of the housing or the fastening mechanism but there's clearly no support for that in the figure five thirty four shown as double sided tape and the specification a description of screws magnets and double sided tape so that's due to side walls of a four walled housing of the housing would not be considered faster but that's not today's issue but that is where we're headed if we go back on remand and that is why as i said earlier we are not advocating rewriting the fact fastening mechanism whil stuff wouldn't pretty much any skilled artist and know how we could join two services together with a fastener i mean i guess you're saying this is what we're going if we go back and i'm saying at all the give a prayer of winning that argument because i think any skilled artists and would probably know that you could have two surfaces that could be joined together with a fastener whether fasteners screw a bolt heck binder clips i mean you know just about anything could hold these two surfaces together and so yes they don't disclose  as lawyers and the court has heard many different examples of it brought up but this is not get us in bulk and claim twelve talks about several specific things that need to be included in that claim and for those things to be part of the claim they have to be enabled and they have to be supported by the written description and we contend that the only thing that is enabling the only thing supporting the written description that gives retrofit meaning is what we have said before which is that the attachment surface is the thing that gets that a fixture that this was going to be for retrofit with an existing like fixture of this particular in body metal or a claim apparatus was going to be working with a retrofit light fixture why doesn't i don't understand i'm confused that has meaning in and of itself regardless of whether you articulate the net then let it of attaching this fixture to the retrofit light fixture that is an independent element which what it must be met with by the said whether you'd say how it's going to be connected to each other we submit your honor that the blackbird is correct and i believe the court mentioned earlier that there is nothing that requires a claim to contain all the embodiments and all the ways of doing something but there is an absolute requirement that when something is claimed that that thing has to be present for infringement the thing has to be present for written description that thing has to be present for enablement and hear the retrofit thing or the to embody myths that described earlier one where the bal cover is already a part of the claimed invention an existing ballast cover is removed and the entire invention is rip put on the existing fixture a second which is claimed twelve is the ballast cover remains in place and the claim invention is somehow secured to the existing lighting fixture the retrofit well how that is done is by the attachment service being secured with about that stuff but that's that's a problem the problem is you don't just want to limit this claim to a you have the housing having attachments or we don't believe we have a housing we don't have a hell saying you don't have what you don't have any of that stuff i don't see what the what the problem is why you're so hung up on whether or not the attachment surface fixture meccan or fastener mechanisms pull disclaimer not through the words attachment means it seems like what you're describing without all the multitude of other lot of frenchmen arguments what we do your honor but we we were as i say we were constrained by what this pattern says we don't believe that this amendment makes any sense we don't believe it's enabled but we had to live in the market in context with what this patent says we're not we were not able to present not infringe on our knees but you don't believe it's enabled i mean how can you say that i mean i care that i'm not don't only answer  the simplicity of the technology even though there may not be a body that scores that i dony answer that's not even question keep going so if you want well i feel compelled to talk a little bit about more about the amendment because i want to make clear i think i make clear that we're not asking to be insert what was taken out but what i also want to make clear is that that the cases of larry geo mask and decision making inform what should be done here in land you masking decision in the claim elements that were removed and people were asking to put them back in and the court said of course we're not going to do that but in both cases the core did not stop right there the court said we still need to look at the specification we still need to determine what this claim meet and in decision in particular part per curiam decision the court said ok the word kiosk was taken out there's nothing that requires this method or this apparatus i'm sorry for applying for credit credit cards there's nothing about it the requires it be in  but when they went to determine what the word remote interface meant the court said well it can't be a person's personal computer because that's not out in publicly available like a kiosk would have that they didn't say you put the word chaos back in the cl what the court said is you look to what the invention was and here the invention is not other than what we've described the invention is attaching this lighting apparatus to the ballast cover i mean existing fixture thank you them i think generally you would be talking about that but i don't think the claim is written to require that or it would rest well there's nothing in the claim that suggests we're going to add whole new ho fixtures for additional lights and that would seem inconsistent with the word retrofit when the retrofit doesn't imply that you're taking away something and putting something i don't think i would agree that necessarily implies and i think the agreed construction of the preamble which i think is relevant limitation for this is the book for installation in a lighting fixture well i take your point but my point is i don't think that's a limitation of the claim that you know there's no requirement that the user remove the balls to infringe this claim i think this is an apparatus claim this infringed by the