construction of dependent claim fourteen and as a result erred in its finding claim fourteen was shown invalid typically the panel erred in failing to give proper weight to the plain language of claim fourteen that requires an active method step of composing a holes or in particular a deadbolt activating system of three separate components namely a gary  you agree that if the board got the claim construction right that you lose in this case yes if if the if the claim only requires that the completed composite structure meet the whole requirements and by that i mean that you can find in that composite completed structure something that is a gear carriage something that is motor and battery carriage and something that is a gear base i believe if that construction is confirmed then the finding of invalidity would be appropriately affirmed i think this all turns on the claim construction  and whether or not the claim requires you to engage in the step of combining the three components were cited in the claim to provide the whole or whether or not you can look at that claim as the board did in simply finding that you look at the completed assembly and see if you can check off each of the features were claim and i think that clay construction issue is absolutely critical because if the claim is found to actually require the method of composing a whole by combining these fact show that method of assembling or forming the device now the board's found that the claim does not require the combination of these three components but simply look to see does the completed fourteen as a dependent claim from a method claim that adds a method step requiring the composing of a whole from three discrete components and in order to violate  and in order to show that claims invalid the method step of combining those three elements must must be shown and i think that's clear from the claim language itself because the claim doesn't simply recite a deadbo that very clearly shows that this is not something that you look at the end apparatus but you actually look at that method step is performed and i think there's at least two things in the claim that confirm that one is the active  components it very clearly indicates that it's talking about an active assembly of those three components and not simply characteristics or featured of the final a simple device i think it's also important to know says that you composed the whole i e the deadbolt activating system of the discrete components and one of those components is identified as a motor and battery kerridge that means that you have to have a in order to move the deadbolt activating assembly in order to move the deadbolt you have to perform the steps of claim eleven and then claim fourteen also indicates that you have to do that through an initial step of composing the deadbolt activating system of these components and then the specification shows that the way that you end up moving the deadbolt is by st combining the three components that are identified  including fourteen and that's important because what this patent is directed to is a method of allowing you to move a preexisting deadbolt locks without necessarily having to change the energy of the locks so you can keep the same key you basically are engaged in a process to move that ball and in order to do that you have to assemble something on the door that will allow a motor to interface with claim referred to a year base the patent describes as a template unit and the board found that was a proper correlation you st put that on the door you then find an adapter that will fit that particular have a carriage couple gears to allow an adapter to interface with the lock and then you have the motor and battery carriage that will provide the power to turn the lot so i think that if you teams as reciting an additional methods of what's required in claim eleven i think if you looked at clean fourteen and tried to say that well maybe that's really just talking about characteristics three main components and it looks like yours are mounted to the motor and battery carriage is that right well i seventeen the actual description of the patent in column four despite the fact that the gear casing twelve is molded such that there is a hollow portion of size and shape to contain gears to a reversible e long gated member and that's a member that fits within a an element of the motor and battery carriage and goes through the assembly into the lock to turn it  but in terms of the gears that are described in calling for its ninety one thousand and eleven and you can see where those are in the figure which it does show them is resting on the motor battery carriage seventeen they're just resting on the an element ten that the patent describes as a gear but if you look at the figure that actually looks to be a cutout rather than a year of leave the gear would be as described in the spec would actually be held in illustrates those in a little bit more detail and i think you can see that here ten if you look at figure three is actually shown as something that would fit into a recess the board correctly concluded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of composing in the context of claim fourteen simply requires a staff of forming the deadbolt system so that it comprises or is composed of the turning to the claim construction there's no basis for pattern owners belated attempt to narrow the composing so that it would require assembling the deadbolt system by physically bringing together three separate preexisting relationship between the elements that would suggest they have to be separate structures eleven it self pattern owner used the term attached or attaching to describe joining two structures together but in claim fourteen pattern owner selected the broader term composing which only requires forming the system so that it constitutes or comprises those listed elements and looking at the specification there is again no support for patent owners narrow construction the specification does not use the term composing to describe attaching preexisting structures on the contrary it discusses composing structures of a single material for example it talks about a casing that's composed of plastic and brackets that are composed of metal carriage so therefore figure two is showing that those two claim elements can be parts of the same physical structure there's just no requirement for separate  here and opposing counsel want to match the elements of claim fourteen on the three structures that are shown in figure two and we disagree with that mapping but even if you match those structures and say they correspond to composing step that requires separate preexisting structures that have to be put together so that if she simply was never raised in a prosecution so there's clearly no basis to narrowly construe composing term so in some all of the intrinsic evidence supports the board's construction of claim fourteen and therefore you don't even need to look at pattern owner's extr dictionary evidence but if you do it also shows a composer and doesn't necessarily require bringing together separate and preexisting structures can simply mean constituting as it does here  therefore the board's construction should be a physically being combined you're conneaut separate structures i just as in some of the cases that were cited in the briefing if you talk about attaching separate structures to to one another that type of language  might further support a requirement for separateness but really you should look at the record as a whole in and and here there is no support in the specification or prosecution make a difference i think the concept of combining is inherent in the ordinary meaning of composer when you talk about composing the whole of discrete parts or composing a whole of different items that is the active combination the various items to create a whole when when you talk about a composite structure for example a composite boat for example you're talking about independent viewers and that that shows that a single structure can meet multiple limitations in a claim that really isn't the issue here there is no dispute that if you have an apparatus claim that recites multiple limitations a single structure in fact need multiple limitations but here the claim talks about composing a whole from discrete parts and we would you have to have each of those discrete parts and while it's true that housing seventeen does carry some gears such that it might be a motor and battery carriage and carry some tears if you look at the patent it's clear that the other structure shown in figure two in particular structure twelve is a gear carriage that carries a gear so the specification does in fact show combining the three specific components reciting claim fourteen to create the whole and as a final matter the issue of whether or not order to move the deadbolt when you're talking about an adaptive system that is being used to move a preexisting deadbolt you have to have that dead bolt assembly created and attached to the dead bo exist when you start to move the deadbolt but a priority before you can begin to do that you have to assemble and form the deadbolt activating system or as claimed fourteen would say engage in the act of composing the