both counts  is going to create a four way below pattern burke on each of the four sides was important i thought you dissensions of the eight sixty seven was that you had the units at a forty five degree angle instead what troubles me about the way both the sixty seven and the patents you characterize the operative terms of chain these will be a sixty seven as well as a three five three you specifically say between each of the four making chambers thirty eight and three five three pad and chamber sixteen with our only physical structure at the point in juncture of those two spaces which in any way  towards air force the plaintiffs are trying to do in this appeal there are gaining construction of the term chamber which would require physical structure be present at the juncture of each of their stock let me ask you this suppose instead of a four sided device do you say the four sided device with no barriers between each of the sides is still a four chamber that is a more complex question but we're not the only issue here we have poor sods turning a ninety degree angle there's no evidence that the functional level in what they're trying to do is put a physical openings which end novels to facilitate movement so even if you require some physical structure and each of the corners it could be a frame type structure with a huge opening in it where to go if it was permitted  made it very clear that it is the burden of establishing on the docket i'm going to start first with the induction unit granted limitations from the specification cannot be imported into the claims but there's no suggestion anywhere in the patent itself or in the prior art pat incorporated into the patent that the induction units are anything other than a free standing unit that is connected together so even though the district court did not define induction unit i believe that the court here given that the issue was fully briefed follow can hold that the induction unit have to be completely standalone unit as is depicted in the figures of both the patent issue and the prior art patent council's argument that the induction units depend on each other is really a red herring if that is a function of how they're connected if you took any one of the induction unit disclosed in the patent and connected them directly to the primary error source they would function as an induction unit and induce air i don't think that i'm going to i don't think there's any suggestion in the patent that an induction unit the cases cited or the prior precedent of the fork in the case that the doctrine of equivalence has to be applied to individual elements of the claim not the invention of the home as a whole and for example in the machine does not work the same because it lacks the four walls at the corners well first of all at eight nine fourteen of our experts deposition page sixty six of the council asset line twelve these four sides in the cuban fifty mixing chamber are going to give you a four way blow correct and the expert answers it could give you a four way blow depending on the configuration of the grill that is applied to it question remove the grill ok is it going to give you a four way flow without the girl correct and then i object to form and the exercise i must deny that it would all blow straight down it wouldn't be a four way blow the blow is developed by the grill or diffuser so you have the open box structure that stuck in the ceiling and then an unplanned element in our case the grill or diffuser actually pushes out the four way below i mean if the dr hundred bullets were to apply here to say that just because air flows down four walls then the induction units themselves would pretty much infringe the patent the single induction units because the air is going to flow down the walls in those two as well i mean and council cannot simultaneously argue that the air is free flowing everywhere and therefore we've admitted that a chamber can be free flowing and then say there's no that are for open walls act the same way as the chain i mean i don't think anyone reading this patent part of the function of having a published patent is to give the public notice of what being claimed no one looking at this patent would ever say anything other than taking four separate induction units and connecting them in some manner would infringe the client but i mean i can guess the question that is troubling me in from a different route suppose i no and if not why not artists first of all i realize that you know there was some question about removing the ends of the device and connecting them together but i'm not even sure how you could do that because if you cut the between the patent and the cues devised to be that there is the same basic structure but in one case you've got the four sides are created turned into four separate discrete chambers by virtue of the inclusion of a wall between each of the four chain that is that a fair characterization of what the patented device has that makes those chambers discreet  chambers no i think the patent device has discreet chambers because they're separate induction units that you're connecting together in some manner but so the reason that ends up mattering i take it is because right and that's why that leads me to my question which is suppose that you bought a device which is the commercial environment of the pattern ok and that device has started out with four separate induction units and you put them all together into a square and then you had walls in each of the corners but then you in setting up your proposed distinguishable device pulled the four walls of the corners entirely in the record but when you have one big space the induction is occurring all through the state says you know they're coming down and sucking up air in the middle there are correct in the patent event if the ends are  tells us that when you take those into their years away the device operates in a very different way i think it operates in a different way because the patent is disclosing for and the flow would if the air would flow faster out of one than the other because there is a separation between even though yes they can be connected in the air will flow through the top of down there in each have a separate set of nozzles that strong the air out and pushing it out through a separate open are you saying then that to take this example of that in your device you would lose the advantage which the patented device has of being able to use to that effect differently sized knowledge your device doesn't have that and then painter's features that is that what you're saying because it's all one open chamber you don't have any enclosures that allow areas to be pressurized separately ok and you know i agree with the court know that you know the doctrine of a quibble and allows you to say to satisfy a claim limitation without literally satisfying it but it doesn't allow you to rewrite the patent you know i mean  yet instead of using the term chamber they could have used the term wall they could have used as they did air a section they use air mixing section of primary air intake section but they specifically used the term chamber and that venturi a fact requires that you're pulling air or air is being pushed down it goes through the nozzles and because the nozzle is the first of all the the air types made no showing whatsoever in opposition to our summary judgment motion that the doesn't affect the way it opera i mean it's still a was i mean an induction unit whether you remove the wall or not but it's a separate induction correct it is a separate induction unit and that's what claimed i guess i did that answer your question ye here i mean that the district court gave the term chamber is ordinary and customary meaning i don't i think whether or not the dictionary definition is used a chamber is an enclosed space in common usage whether it's a heart or not and there's no enclosure here whatsoever so let's say take a slightly different example suppose we had a an invention which is designed to produce differential heating and cooling for a group of cubicles and then office called on race war and the patent described the operation and explained why the different cubicles would all be able to be kept in different temperature because of the clever aspect of some aspect of the device are and then we discover on the accused infringer discovers that he is single work even if you take the cubicle walls down so that even the people have less privacy they'll still be just as coolers warm as they want to be either because the air coming down over their desk is going to be unaffected by the watts now do you think that the in that kind of case would you say that the accused system without the cubicle walls would be within the doctrine of equivalence of a claim to a system for warming the room where the system claims that the room has a number of different cubicle whatever but that wouldn't be very satisfactory seems to me because if succeeding is done in exactly the same way and the results are exactly the same the walls between the cubicles become immaterial except for the you can answer the question amazing wish list soon as they needed to put a was in just because people are normally comfortable in cubicles that have walls as opposed to all this cubicles but does that disable them from same number of knots so the air pressure in each of those plenum chambers is going to be exactly me sane and as a result even if he claims that they have exactly the same in their plenum chamber