it to a total of five cases two of which are being submitted on the briefs without oral argument today they are appeal number zero six that five zero eight zero zero do a versus united states and appeal number zero six construed in deceptive as dividing a conduit and then inflame it changed it later but what does that have to do with adding words to the past and i thought what the district court did as requested by the parties was to provide a definition in this patent for the word conduit but you're saying he added words like camille and he didn't add any words he merely defined what conduit in this particular patent means which would seem to be perfectly proper  radiator in the transmission right and i would submit that that is not working and that's not entirely consistent with the written description fluids just as much as the hose or a line or much as the hoses or metallic lines that feed into those radiator connectors your own throughout the automobile if transmission d d a to all of these  part it is not that other parts of the uk automobile good seems to me you're trying to equate the word conduit to the expression cooler line that was used in the written description but to do interpret the claims the way i understand you're suggesting would would mean the claim would not read on the embodiment shown in figure two and that's  not added to the claim it's used in the claim is simply defined in a way that is consistent with the the written description and the entire presentation of the invention defies the imagination as to what can be changed by judicial interpretation of what the district court didn't construe that expression to and include all the parts of the automobile which district courts construction was there it is wrong because if you interpret the terms that we just based on the claim then the words cannot mean something other than the while you said earlier that mr parker the other side's witness gave the construction of the claim from the perspective of an ordinary artisan which helped your case what describes the road that leads from the federal courts building to the white house i don't think the person reading it will understand it to me that the road includes the white house and the radiator connections in a given vehicle it may be that vehicles a b c made by different makers have exactly the same size radiator connection in which case the same pose all call that would fit all three and therefore you would be servicing multiple vehicles made by different makers all with the same hope not i maybe that vehicle d has a different sized connector and for that one you might need a different sized hose but i don't follow your point my point is i'm not an expert on this area  possible vehicle and therefore if in my example several vehicles have the same size connector then without adapter hoses you can service those mobile vehicles but maybe not every vehicle so if you only claimed more than one vehicle but not everybody ical i don't see how we get into the issue of best mode about the adapter hos from the connections that are part of the things the conduit is attached to and therefore to read the claim using the words that appear would require properly construed only to mean the the line or hose and two x glued connectors and other parts of the pathway wouldn't that mean that to do the of the conduit that already has a natural end to it because if you expose we're talking about a metal line carrying this fluid and if you had to separate in order to do the intercepting then so that describes the whole system in order to make this happen obviously if you just had a better hold that wouldn't happen as just happened to be all one word response to a question hash during prime and that was of mr parker who was an auto mechanic who came with that data the corporal and was waiting in the lobby or actually arrived late the judge was a little testy with if the witness intended to be addressing the one seventy patent then its not rigid i meant for his answer to be used as an attempt to prove violation of the best mo requirement with regard to the one sixty pence though if you're correct that his answer should be understood to implicitly refer to one seventy then certainly you have to win on that issue but suppose that it's either viewed by us as ambiguous or record that everybody in the court including the witness and the person asking the questions were aware that if the one sixty patent that was being referred to during the time when he was asked whether this was the best move he knew for