relatively straightforward mechanical inventions so i'm not going to go into any details of the the workings of these images it's fully laid out in our briefs material the superior maintains that the social let me ask you just as a panel which of the claimed terms rationally necessary to decide to sustain an infringement because like here in that case the district court hadn't given us an opinion that explained to us why there would be not aspect your honor it was one beneficial aspects yes you don't want to be limited to another thing right you want to have the ability in the future i guess to use a metal ramp or something else but you don't claim i'm that all right you don't claim a mental ransom we don't claim an earthen ramp in and the nine forty three patent which is the the parent of the five putting a pan speak specifically this is that the winds up slides down into the right going to simply have just repeats so there's there's the whole limit all the limitations and have to do with the support structure seem to be totally irrelevant to model i wouldn't worry myself with what construing those terms which is difficult right there because earlier embodied and have so many where there's there are three models that have been so one property in construction it would be nothing from but you know you get a proper claim construction without context you give us no context how can we construe meaning i think there's never a requirement that the context voice absolutely a requirement that you give us enough context to construe and we have said over and over in our opinions that there is great value in at least showing anough so we know that we're not giving advisory opinions which is questionable under article three practice  you the morning you leave the court in fact on behalf of massada how can these claim constructions possibly be correct when they miss one of the first points i make in any patent law class which is that when you have a product or structure claim you get it for all uses for all functions for all intended purposes and yet this structure whether it's a c channel or a ramp if district court goes on to add for supporting an earthen ramp or to substantially surround lists  purpose and a and a reason for the structure which is exactly opposite to the fundamental principle that it's structural claim it's all uses and functions and purpose your response as your honor with respect to the channel being for instance i'll take that one for now just address the principle can it possibly be correct to include the function purpose intended uses when any patent lawyer and i'm sure our esteem counsel in front of us would agree know that you get all uses and purposes of a structure well in this case the specifications define the purpose of the structure it's not the purpose but it's how it's configured for instance the channel before you can define that configuration you can't limit it to a purpose to substantially this for substantially that because the patent specifically say that it's configured to substantially around all four sides of the respective being insane gays so but that doesn't limit you to a construed in light of the specification how do you deal then with the claim differentiation arguments looking at the sheets that see shaped limitation for instance we have a claim differentiation to only to how you first construe that in light of the specific limitations in the dependent claims which includes other walls phone the question you know  sorry claim differentiation when you have a dependent claim that lists additional limitations you perceive that they are not part of the independent claim which does not include those forced well your honor we made our motion for summary judgment making that argument that we didn't have any infringement and one of the reasons we made it i mean i don't want to go back down i'd like to get it all resolved here but we it was our position in the district to another point that my colleague judge clevenger made earlier is there anything in the record that supports your allegation that there's no channel in that you don't have a chance of being of that fact finding conducted by law there anything in the record show us where in the record you don't have a chevy we have provided the court with the most for summary judgment papers and our client affidavit that have pictures of ark used to buy and drawings and what you can see from that your honour's that we use tubes we have  see it was there fact finding may not by the district court how can we review a decision that wasn't made because the judge construed the claims as he thought correct and then he of non infringement yes to an emphasis to google from that point you're showing us a lot of things by pointing to visual aids where is all that information in the record and you're just going to say well you have to see yourself well on the we needed to claim construction isn't that's where we're having trouble the airplane construction that we have is mostly and functional terms and those functional terms besides being irrelevant are not in the flame and i'm having great trouble reading structure out of the function i think it's there's there are structural your honor i mean the we don't read those things out of the specification into the claims particularly when it's hoped that let's hear from your thank you your honor like honor we wouldn't be here today if we thought that a channel being construed as we proposed didn't cover their amiss on those devices all of them of the under carriage devices at issue we wouldn't be here today it wouldn't be an issue i'm not going to waste the courts i'm not going to waste my client's resources on appealing a claim term that if it's reversible puts us in a position where there's nothing to assert we we believe that the the claim t of their point is that they're being managed doesn't have three sides four sides a piece of you know form like a rectangle on the side and just slides up it's not using it it doesn't have a problem of having a notch to allow the supports the code through it because claim language has to be viewed in the context of a specification that says that opening can be any size it needs to be to accommodate the cross bracing that is placed on the upper support so one say your honor that there has been no clear redefinition of any of these terms in the specification the claims on their face have plenty of context to understand these claim turns the foreigner requirement that there be a clear explicit disclaimer