error was that during the prosecution of the one six your patent additionally taishan zwar added in to claim twenty one which mclain claim one those are limitations in the claim those are and added structural imitations onto the scrap sweater of the one six zero claims as part of that response you argue that struct splitter should be defined as a quote a part of a chin guard assembly separate from the  don't any of the claim limitations included in your post instruction well the in the in the six seven one patent it there is nothing about a first lot and second slot so it just says a first draft of a split claim seven which we're looking at of the six seven one pattern in terms of claim one of the of the one six zero patent there is a requirement of a first slot and a second slot those don't need to be baked into the limitations that had been structure mutations that have been added to the original straps and later as claimed and then decided those were part of the straps letter because of what referred to as lexicography but that was simply just error on the district court no it's not because the the context of the the comment was claims twenty one and thirty two have been amended and in these claims these claims not not other claims that didn't have  those additional imitations built in that a strap splitter is defined as and he said a unitary body with the first slot in space relation to the second slot if there's any definition it would only if it should stop there but the word defined in that context just means delineated if you look in the rest of the prosecution and we cited to it there's also with a statement that interior slots last pocket defined by the shell the helmet is defined by an exterior surface construed know they're not mood in the first instance why is stopped relevant to the case so stop is a a limitation only in the six seven one claims and she misconstrued limitation when when even if you affirm on the construction of stretch splitter then she she added e and second single continuous opening and that caused her in part to apparently hold that was part of her deal we holding which is erroneous so i'll move on to the infringement issues and let me just cover so inset second slot it didn't have a second slot having a link greater than the first slot that was her literal infringement finding their shoes devices there's three slots all the same length the q s device has from our point of view a second slot with a cosmetic non fact functional divider that's what it has and that and that's really more for b o we but it has and there's nothing in the in the claim that excludes being able to add a divider to the second slot which is what wilson did her single continuous slot is where she gets into well if it if you have this divider than the slots not saying one continues so if you reverse on her single continuous language which is improper then summary judgment should stand on one s literal infringement with respect to one six zero deal we that her her opinion is simply one error after another first she applies the wrong test she says it has to be the same way that's not the test  knowledge isn't the same function she acknowledges there is the same result and she says it it's not the same way therefore if this shoots the claim limitation that's not the test the test would be you'd look at whether it's substantially the same don't think of the appropriate for this cork to so hold now that there are other elements that would be the shit that should be something that the just if anything remain a district court and she should address because there are expert opinions covering all of these in terms of why it substantially the same way in terms of the her her curling was or her complaint was it doesn't allow for angular adjustability the the second single splitter they diverge away from each other which they simply do there's little infringement there that the other part that she focused on was angrily i think you ask about what being angrily just with respect to each other that's that's  broad and generalized she made a generalization about kind of the invention that doesn't align with the claim language and claim seven so her complain about the the angular adjust in the slot the angler adjustability is not a requirement of six seven one claim want that's that's were our claim seven that's requirement one six zero claim one and claim one only says they have to diverge in the slot it doesn't say applied the wrong tacit in minimum the district court should be remanded so she can apply the right to the right to should be that and really vitiate and just means that no reasonable jury could find that they were substantially the same way since she found the way because it's nonfunctional  and the only basis for little the her little infringement ruling was a second slot with a link greater than the first lot if you correctly find that the strap splitter term in the what's more storms trying to do is to broaden the scope of their claims and walk away from the arguments they made and the amendments they made to warrant further rejection but isn't the problem that the claim and the district court for the six seventy one has read those back into the definition and that seemed to me just contrary the way you do claim construction if straps put are inherently enclosed all those had all the structural limitations and they wouldn't have needed to put it at i understand your point on terms of what happened here it just seems like they were able to get a claim through the patent office that's probably going to be obvious when they go back and it's a big waste of time but you can construe a claim term by referencing other plane limitations on otherwise you render those are the limitations we're going to tell you one of the slots can't be symmetrical it was a disclaimer for a strip splitter and we have additional imitations that must be present i got you for all of that i think you know everything on the bike sixty they did all that they put it all ed the problem is they got to go back to the office on the six seventy one and they left all that out they just put in straps letter and a couple little less back the patent office never should have granted it after making the narrow it for the one sixty but they did that and to try to get those narrowing limitations from the one sixty patent into the six seventy one the an improper claim construction seems incorrect as a matter of law even though it may be the right result when multiple patents this court assent when multiple patents come from the same application the defined in the one sixty a strap splitter is the same limitation those two words in these continuation patterns are the same limitation the strap splitter is defined and as a unitary body with the first slot in space relation to a second slot a fixed bars found in the usury body with the second slot having a length greater than the first miley that is her all that is from the one sixty it is the definition of a strap suggests that they met to adopt the person by same definition yes the very same patent examiner armed with exactly the same claim element in this continuation patent and the very same strap splitter limitation in the six someone patent to rule otherwise that we can't know that he can't and he moves that definition because he let me use a broader term without those limitations i mean it seems like your d v r it's what the patent office that they should never fix except that the six seventy one and then i think you're right that i don't know how we can import limitations into a claim term and it took  it can't be known why they drafted the claim the way they drafted it your honor all it is clear is they specifically said that they were adding these limitations to move away from and they needed to have these it claims the same ancestry as the once excel patent that's what this court has repeatedly said in terms of what they are bound by in terms of moving forward in their continuation is verbatim what the inventor side was the definition of a strap splitter including the second slot what about our first your what about your friends argument that that's not pen any competitor who once to understand fairly what is claimed and what is free has to look at the pen and be able to understand well if the inventor saying it's defined as th the two strips go through the first line and then have a cosmetic fill that between the second and third slots it's undisputed in the record that these are symmetrical in length that can't that structure can't be a cosmetic fillin it is a structure why does that make a cosmetic fill and why isn't that the cosmetic feel and why isn't that the cosmetic feeling it's clear that the court was correct this is application so he was armed with that prosecution history from the one six all and the scheibel was found by what he argued in connection with the one six all because  shouldn't his response be no you can't go back to this original prog claim language i made to limit it to get over whatever that reference is you've got a limited and this one too that seems to me like what a reasonable and proper response from the examiner should have bit of this because the examiner saw that the inventor had already defined strap splitter as having two slots one longer than the other it was his express definition of the same limitation strips  patents derived from the same initial application the prosecution history regarding a clean limitation in any patent is issued applies with equal force to subsequently issued patents that contain the same limitation and patent a new type of staff splitter with a new structure i get that's not what happened here i'm with you on that but isn't that the problem with weeding a very narrow limitation into a subsequent different patent when structure it uses in fact the identical figures figure one from the one six l patent and figure seven from identical you said that but you are pointing to things i'm sorry as the court may notice when i point to figure seven it is identical thank you you they are identical i diverged from each other in the second slot that is not present in the wilson invention then the wilson strap divider there has medic fill and prevents the strap from being angerly adjustable or from being juxtaposed or being together at all stop is only described in the six seven one patent and as a structure that persist troops from the strap plug didn't come out of thin air plug was a definition that sports star used in its previous litigation and that's part of the record thank you jim thank you it's thank you so to begin with the and if the court does issue nipping it in does for amanda for the proceedings i would just ask there's no need i understand comments about maybe the patent option of allowed it there are other limitations in claim seven that distinguish it's not just like they retreated back to a strap splitter for example the stop amended to add these additional imitations it's said it's defined as this and the context is the limited when you look at the other references to define in each instance in the prosecution it's being used in that way it's not being used in the sense of defined as a dictionary definition just to be clear so my friend has mixed up this idea of angrily diverge ng in the second slot that is a requirement of the the court's analysis of of a deal we was just superficial and it just muddle together these different elements without sorting out which ones were actually went in each claim and it didn't give any acknowledgment to the summary judgment evidence that