wrong please the court the district court heard in two fundamental ways first the district court failed apply its own construction and second without finding any exception they were allowed to do so it read in limitations from the preferred embodiments into the coins if i may i'd like to begin with the first motion mechanism which deals with the first type of air at the district court for let's go in for claim fourteen that's for claim fourteen correct the district court correctly construed the limitation calling for a first motion mechanism for driving well that let's assume for purposes of this question and i think you say this that the district court in the claim construction of one claim construction and then in the summary judgment effectively narrow the claim construction and so sometimes sister courts can do that and that effectively required by clean work he'd sell a claim fourteen pretty clearly defines what the guiding element is that it and it merely needs to be something that the rollers are able to be movable upon there is nothing in the claim language that would suggest to to us that the guiding elements these are have any sort of a three dimensional structure or that it needs to guide in any particular direction much less both vertical and horizontal notably the file history and then quoting in particular the examiner found that flat surfaces constitute guiding elements and then you refer to what that element the examiner concluded about serb ousts runway mechanism includes a are first pairs spaced apart guiding elements track one runway is fourteen and includes two parallel roll rows of rollers wheels forty four disks dispose on opposite sides of the base thirty which are moveable along said two thousand and thirteen does your client have anything to do with it or know anything about rowley williams really williams is an individual that i'm not aware of that has any connection to my client has no connection to comes to considering the crank limitation what is important is how a person of ordinary skill in the art would would view the crank term and i think both parties during the time not to be sympathetic with counsel would tell me that excited irrelevant material i don't think it's a or a relevant i don't think that the decision pounds upon it i think it's relevant in the fact that it shows how both an arm shaped crane and a dish a crate can perform i thought you just saw me do you think it was relevant honor i just think it's it's not material to the course determination it's certainly demonstrative of how the term crank could be viewed and how it has been viewed for many centuries it can i ask i mean on the assumption that a cracker in general usage doesn't depend on its shape how can it i said focus very much on the language of the claim that talks about this crack having pictures one from thorleif patent one of an actual photograph if used product and on the disk what you do is draw a little red dotted lines in the shape of an arm namely a segment of the disk and say that th language of the claim was not construed by the district court but i'm not sure that needs its construction so at it just focus on that yet for a minute this crack has to have to let it's hard for me to see that a disk does not hard for me to see that two ends are if you just have a single desk with that rotates about it center and it's not connected at another another point certainly there's really no ends to the structure but in operation when you take a disc like th i suppose i disagree with you about about cranks and conclude that a critic has to be and or i agree with you that it doesn't have to be at right angles i disagree with you about the fixedly but we did for the crank limitation ok so what controls the judgement on infringement the district or use the construction and i want to go back to your points of connection on your d s sure but what you've told us is that if you have two points of connection you have two  connection i suppose it would depend on where that third point at the point where does it all and i'm only one points of connection and i have on a disk and are those all and defined as being at each corner three different corners as opposed to being at  definition of connected in fixedly the district court you know i think made an error just even how that the term connected is used in common usage it is very common to say that your arms and legs are case let alone the four distinct and independent claim construction errors and two associated factual findings by the district court all of which wonderland would need to prevail on as they have now conceded let me disagree no i don't think that they've they've conceded that if they prevailed on connected fixedly they'd get a room and on claim three i think that they do and claim fourteen has to prevail if least on the guiding elements which seems to me they're sticking points well i would disagree with that your honor i think when you look at the text of the stipulation with regard to claim three they did not say we you know we cannot prevail on a literal infringement syria anymore under claim three in light of these two separate constructions they simply has to have two ends otherwise i don't know how you get there we agree with that and we think that the intrinsic record shows an arm with two ends dictionary definitions that a five forty nine and a four eleven also refer to an arm we do think it's very clear that an arm has two end is not for a number of reasons that your honour's discussed with my posing council earlier so the arm construction we think is sufficient to exclude the scope of the disk that's being the thing accused and that's why wonderland stipulated at that time that the face the hitting face and the claw are connected fixedly even though they're both cast in the us of a single piece i don't know iron or whatever it is well we don't think that reflects the ordinary meaning of the term and we certainly don't think that reflects how the term is used in the context that matters most which is how it's used in the six zero nine patent without exception the word connected or connected fixedly describes separate pieces that are somehow joined together and there's a side that was actually a question  seat are there any separately labeled either by number or words pushes that are nevertheless cast out of say the same piece of plastic as others separately number formed and when describing how the base relate to the legs it says that the legs extend from the base it does not say that the legs are connected to the base and none of the so if i look at figure one which shows all three and named portions of that assuming that everything but the rails was pre cast specifically restricted to the base portion we're talking about your honor i'm described as connected to each other i mean we think there's a great deal of internal consistency in the six zero nine patent that two pieces that are identified and shown separate from each other are described as connected but in the only example of something that's not separate pieces of this interview all those pieces relate to each other by extending into each other and that we think is just telling us how connected is is used in the pattern and judge fisher found that connected fixedly implies to any person ordinary skill me art or not that there's a connection of separate pieces and we think of the pattern certainly seem to use that term in consistent with that way she had used that she had seen some extremes like sources well on this isn't common fairly ordinary term not a technical term we can for this record leach the conclusion especially in light of the clear intrinsic record on connected fix the general term for example for any quasi hammer with a quantum one and the striking face on the other is cast i think that this is that basic cast is one yet that's how i would understand it as well i mean cast molded into really form there are a number of ways to describe it none of those are what anyone would refer vertical blocking role that it has some additional channeling of of the single being guided in some dimension other than don't let it go further south we believe that there is a strong connotation of the set of tracks which direct movement construction that does require some side to side stability so wait and yes a way to get that out of that out of the patent well we only have one we have one consistent type of example in the patent of a guiding elements are and they are these guiding rods of the patent discloses that clearly provide you know in addition to a vertical support that it doesn't know fall through and touch the bottom seat it does prevent the wheels from rolling off one side or really seems to be more of the issue the district court didn't go quite that far and gave wonderland the benefit of the doubt that there is at least some vertical support that maybe contracts out there but then the summary judgment really effectively said no reasonable jury could find that this that my earlier claim construction applied here basically because in the accused are that there is nothing to prevent the wheels from going anywhere except that for that view of what guiding elements of them at least to me well i think the interim the gregor's is very helpful in that respect again we have the example of the guiding rods which the way that those rods engage with the wheels the wheel sort of well i think the district started in the right place answer that where observing that the patent does talk more generally about the idea of a guided path as as being sort of the direction in which this base can move but then further drills down and specifies that the guiding elements are the physical structure that allow that movement to proceed along the particular pathway that the pattern envisions and so the guiding elements with the examples being the rods are in the pattern very clearly three dimensional structures that are capable of providing that kind of guiding function and this record didn't go so far as to limit the term to include only rods but did construe them consistent with that the broader genus of tracks which could include a number of things noted in the record such as a rail or some other thing that extends from the surface upward or is embedded in the surface people of providing the kind of guidance that's in vision by the at so the horizontal side to side we think that's that's clearly how the preferred  that rotating rod so that as the rod rotates it moves along the teeth back and forth and up and down commensurate with the movement of those slot because the shape is he looked at all as opposed to just circular it doesn't just move the base up and down it also slides it back and forth in a horizontal direction so i think that is consistent with the notion that you know following your honour's your honour's logic that some aspect of guiding elements we think fairly contemplates horizontal guidance some sort of mechanical horizontal guidance the disk record again didn't we don't think this record quite went that far but if you if you read this report opinion as clar claim construction recognizing the horizontal guidance is an important between the parties we think the court was correct to resolve the issue in jordan's favor on that ground as well as there was some discussion as well about the first motion mechanism limitation you know this element is raises a two part issue and again this this independently justifies that summary judgment as to claim fourteen it's just to be clear if you're right about guiding elements that first motion back the rest of claim fourteen issues to be considered that's correct and that your honor i think you and i agree is clearly stipulated by  article if you attempt to trace an individual other than some some online searching we did we did confirm actually think that the individual is an australian perhaps not england but it seems to be an active duty and i believe is the term a fond of art about the first motion mechanism which again the court doesn't need to reach for degrees with us on on the guiding elements terms the district court construed the i'm sorry this record construed for driving as being controlling o directing motion we have an admission from wonderland that the gear in linkage accused in the mom or product are quote for driving the base to move back in for effort there may be many things that are for driving that doesn't make that all part of the motion back and  motion mechanism for driving that doesn't mean that everything that's for driving including the producer of the impulse of force is also a first motion that is i mean that's right your honor there are outer limits to what can be considered for driving in the context of this patent the patent does use the term for driving someone inconsistently but does at least consistently referred to pieces that control or direct movement as being for driving we think it's important to recognize the first motion mechanism in claim three which is not characterized as for driving but has a separate motor recited for driving is different from the first motion mechanism in claim twelve which is recited as for driving and the fact that there are dependent claims from there that and limit that first motion mechanism just to the wheels and the tracks and this claim thirteen we think is a pretty clear signal that the first motion mechanism for driving in claim twelve includes at least those things and something more your  channel guides the horizontal movement and does engage with one of the little pins that sticks down to him to guide it horizontally but the guiding element for the second motion mechanism at that shaft or that  of the arguments that opposing counsel is proffered really demonstrate that the district court's error when when you when you asked for the support for the horizontal guidance and the three dimensional you could tell by itself you know just the floor and that's all you have and you know for for these you know these little passageways which you know might have the equivalent of chalk marks chile where they are at the choc doing it well i think the track in this instance is is dictated by the wheels and where they actually move along that flat surface and then that's it and that's dictated simply by the physical structure of the wheels connected to it is it a post is reciprocates up and up and down i guess you could think you could think of this and you know what if those areas with the chalk lines as you put it weren't there there was no flat surface certainly those those that we don't dispute that those raised lines are really just an indicator for the manufacturing process to show you where the wheels are supposed to be traversing so it is it is informative as to where the tracks are because that's where the wheels are going to be traversing back and forth which is in the record at the joint appendix at four twenty three clearly encompasses a flat surface a path through the woods it would be an act an example trail through the woods is a track we're not using it in o