it construed the general broad claim phrase reversible e long needed member in claim a lead in to require specific narrow physical features not associated with the language of the claim it is because any way of achieving bad ability with different tailpiece configurations other than by using a reversible or long gaited member having a different shape opening on each do you do you agree ahead your honor why would you reverse it if it had the same one on each hand well it could be reversible for ease of assembly and that these are parts that have to be put together by the user as as the method claim so it does not require specific orientation of the member it would also allow the part to be used to for example one in became worn or one in became blocked in any way it would also allow for ease of manufacturing in some point so that there reversibility concept we believe is distinct from the idea of matching the tail cross and basically a slash and so if one were going to try to have members that would allow this piece to be adapted to different doors what you'd have to have is at least some members with a cross with the slash and with the have koval and that can be done either by having three pieces each one with one shape adapted the each tailpiece or you could have two pieces one perhaps with two shapes one on each end and one that would have no need to have a different shape opening on each and so believe the idea of council yes or yes where in  replacing it but having it be the same on each hand to deal with wear and tear those are not discussed in the specification hohner where are they discussed anywhere in the record anything in the past history it specifically did that in the context of claims that require not only a reversible a long awaited member but a reversible a long gated member having st and nd is with each in having in one instance and says a different shape and in another instance it says a cross and either i have oval or the slash but all of the discussions of reversibility long it is members having different opening on each end was in the context of a specific long gated member in general but went on to define that member in more specific terms by saying that it had two ends with each in having either different shapes are the specific shapes or sided so the question is is reversible a long gated member and isolation as a whole necessarily restricted to one having different shaped opening on on each end and i would say if you look through the patent and the claims of the pattern there's nothing in there that would suggest that that phrase reversible the long gated member would require in any way different shape openings on each ends now the prosecution history does discuss the planes that have more specific limitations requiring that when it talks about the benefit of having the different shapes on each and you use it talks about it in the context of claims and specifically have it so i  do you have any expert testimony in support of those arguments are what i meant driving at is this is it purely a turning argument for example where or or ease of use the ones you mention it's not pointed to anything specifically in the intrinsic record to that extent it is going to be predominantly an attorney it's going to be attorney argument that it but i would say from a lost perspective it really goes to do the words reversibility long gaited number necessarily implies different shape openings on the chin now whether the pat describes a benefit from that or whether it doesn't the question is all those terms we're looking at the patents and we're looking at the specification those three broad words require different shape openings on each  and if you look in the specification and you look in the claims you're not going to find anywhere that it says this has to have a different shape openings on each end in fact if you look at the claims that are in the issue are playing mates as well you have two events one with the have shape and one with the prostate or a rectangular shape and so regardless of whether the specification describes the benefits are the desired functionality of the reversible member there is nothing in the specification that would suggest that those otherwise broad terms should be restricted to a reversible long it is a member that has the very specific configuration of two different shape it member it talks about selecting the end which matches the language such as selecting and matching implies not that the ends of the elongated member of different otherwise why would it be necessary to select or match a particular end of the verse of a long dated member i'm sure this is just relying on the claim language not the specification not the prescription history what is the math matching you have to select and in the reversible along at a member that matches that shape but that doesn't necessarily seems to me exactly a confession that the selecting involved and which have different matching shapes i would say it does not and the reason is that several one is if you have three adapters where each adapter has an end that is  associated with one of the three tail pieces and you pick the selection adapter or the end of the adapter that matches that tailpiece that would completely require comply with the terms of playing eleven and that you would select the end of  t it doesn't mandate that the other is and has a different shape and in fact if we look at figure six c again it shows the reshapes if you were going to have adapters configured to all three locks you might have a member with different shapes on each event you might have one member which would be the rd or the oddball shape which would have the same on each end but it's not necessarily inherent in the concept of not being specific and requiring different shape openings on each also eliminates the prosecution history if you look at the arguments that were identified in the district court opinions they're all that actually explicitly recited the shape of the different end and that claim language would have been meaningless in unnecessary if the concept of having different hines good morning your honor may have the court the district court carefully consider construction of reversely long gated member should be a far and this is because the intrinsic evidence uniform supports the district court's construction of that term and none of the intrinsic evidence supports patent owners construction let's st talk about the language of claim eleven i think that the language of claim eleven year honors makes clear that the reverse will be long dated member must have different shaped openings on each end to accommodate the different shape tailpieces it was amended during prosecution to require the steps of determining the cross section of the tailpiece member of the preexisting deadbolt system and then selecting the end of the reversible long dated member that matches the pre determined tailpiece member and the step of selecting the end that matches  necessarily requires the ends to have different shaped openings otherwise it would be impossible to select one in versus the other to match the pre determined shape of the tailpiece now if the rever matches the tail piece is for accommodating different cross sectional shapes of the various tailpiece members and this requires different shaped openings on each end and this is how the patent owner defined reversible we long dated member during prosecution now what we just heard from the patent owner in this shows up for the st time in the reply brief they use to tempting to rewrite claim eleven to require just selecting a reversible long gaited member that has an end that matches the cross sectional shape of the tailpiece but that's not what that's not what the claim says the claim requires selecting the end of the reversal a long gaited member that matches the predetermined shape and this is consistent with the district court's construction and apple's construction that's a reversible long gaited member have to have different shaped openings on on each  that the adapter should be construed as part of the end so if you have adapters which allow you to modify the and then you have this one to claim language somehow fined it's consistent with the context of the claimant and i don't think you're understanding what i'm saying what they are doing is that the look at the end includes the adapter well the the adapter certainly has an end and the adapter has an end under both parties construction so even under their construction they say well you know the reverse fully long gated member means that it can just be used in either direction but it has to be even under there construct construction you know adaptable to the tailpiece so of course the reversibility long good member has to have in the end and what i'm saying is is clear from the context of all the intrinsic evidence that these reverse fully long dated members have to have inside have different shapes on each end and that's clear from the definition that was provided during prosecution is clear from the claim language of claim eleven and it's clear from the specification as well that i answer your question your honor not really but ok well if there's anything else that you're getting at it i want to make sure i get to your point in and the bat is covered by the claim language what they are i think what they're arguing your honor is essentially this concept of using multiple adapters multiple adapters that might have the same shape opening on each end for example and there's just simply no support whatsoever in the specification for the use of multiple adapters in fact a specification is very clear that  universal line stem in the universal spline stem accommodates virtually all manufactures tailpiece shapes and we could also look at claim one year on and claim one recites a reversible elongated member that's adaptable to substantially all tailpiece members so there you are you would have a single reversible elongated member that could be adaptable to all three shapes of that are disclosed in the specification patent owner is just simply wrong and is just manufacturing the fact that you know the specification of the claims requires the use of multiple adapters it's just simply not the case it's an important point made in the specification that you have a universal blind stem that fits virtually all adapters and that's also reflected in claim one and i would also point out your hon  the specification because it also strongly supports the apples construction of the district court's construction the only passage in the specification that refers to an elongated member that can be used in either orientations does so by having different shaped openings on each end to accommodate the different manufacturers tailpiece and if fact the specification says that the purpose of the dual facing spline stem is so that it can be used with  we do we get these well maybe it doesn't eliminate where on the reversible long long dated member and it's nice there is nothing in the specification that describes a purpose for revers ibility other than to accommodate the different tailpiece shapes of different manufacturers and his organ minister district court was rejected by the district court because it was it was just attorney argument there simply no record evidence whatsoever to support that purpose for reversibility it's very clear from the intrinsic evidence that it's to accommodate different tailpiece shapes and it does so and the only basis for doing so or way to do so is by having different shaped openings on each ins so your honour's i think the specification then very strongly supports apple's construction of reversible along gaited member as well and i would just state very briefly wrong or that i think it's very clear that again this was a term that was not included in the original evidence is consistent with the fact that reversible a long dated member has different shaped openings on each end to accommodate different manufactures tailpiece shapes i would also just state very quickly  that as a separate and independent basis for the district court's claim construction was prosecution history disclaimer at the district court said we did need to get there because my definition is a plain ordinary meaning questions thank you and so if we look to the language of claim eleven and suggest that the different openings have to come into play because the claim refers to the step of selecting the isn't a reversible it long it a number that matches the tail that language would absolutely apply to someone who selects and reversible a long it is a member from a group of three that has a end that matches the tailpiece the requirement that you select and in that matches the tailpiece is necessary to adapt this last opener to the particular lot it is in no way necessary to have different shape openings on each fulfill that adaption feature so if you if you look at the language of the plane it's more odd if you look at the language and claim eleven there's nothing that implies or requires different shape openings and i think it's important to consider claims one in eight because they show when the patentee wanted to recite different shape openings on each and it referred not only to a reversible a long gated member but rather to one that has different shape openings on each end and it did it very specifically so that from our view speaks volumes as to the inappropriateness of restricting playing eleven in this way and as a final point i'll no different shaped openings on each end to get around the prior art i don't think that type of construction would would fly that thank you for your time thank you we thank both sides and the case assisted it that concludes our proceedings for this morning thank you thank you the honorable court is adjourned until tomorrow morning at ten a