so this argument is like a statutory construction argument they use to prevent well and then which we think means prevent what it says prevent a lot of stuff out that you're suggesting that because in another claim they use pr the public supposed to know the parameters of what you're saying your honor i would say we look to the specifications to help alleviate any conservative so what is that i mean i think there are some places you would agree that in the specification they talk substantially about stopping off right yes and so you come up with the one question of the specification that seems to suggest that there could be some right yes or other and and that of the dependent she read into the independent we've two different independent claims and we're talking at the back the different languages used in the two and there and it's differences in degree and emphasis and we're saying that that's one of the canons of claim construction that the use of cushioning dampening partially restrain flow at a reduced rate and even tilt control would be slower and not not as complete these are the kind of passages that would better explaining that the invention is not limited to merely an absolute hermetic room doesn't do that on the it's the prop the processor that activates the suspension control system and the the way that that activation function is the older mean the by controlling not activate well it's the process of consults those conditions and activates if they're satisfied what condition yes yes so if the car's travelling at forty miles per hour and the wheels are to go to a seven or eight degree angle then the processor says suspension system after claims of means for activating said means for shame that that this table was there and i think this is part of the means for activity or this is a program in the process or the means for controlling the spent the suspension those are all of the other elements that are in all of the other drawings of the  prosecution are so consistently and so one of the big us leads to one fine construction result as they do in this case for the ceiling and prevent turns minor differences in the wording of the claims cannot change that outcome and that proposition applies in this case whether you want to call it claim differentiation or not what's mine really you may not be minute to everyone i mean why isn't it pro e at least that you've got one plane that's just prevent fly when you've got one that says prevent any flow if that shouldn't be at least give us some clue that preventing any flow just preventing flow is not necessarily in effect for several reasons your number one the construction that would result from that you would be inconsistent with numerous statements we find that describe the invention absorbing function and no doubt there are descriptions of these patterns in all of the patterns that describe the device can be used as a shock absorber when the vehicle does not feel sufficiently to activate the field sensing means that preventing any substantial flow in response to every jackson indefiniteness protection the applicant struck the word substantial for the for the claim to really prevent any  angle values at which an activation signal is sent it is part of the function of this means but function limitation and merely restating the function in the specification is not sufficient the page thirteen thirty five of the aristocrat case that case dealt with the electronic slot machines and the patent contained a table that listed combinations of symbol position allegory and another point to that and that is you're honest is if there's a table was an algorithm and we disagree with that for the reasons i stated but if it was  imitation and it's certainly too late to effectively are the opposite allow me to move onto the means for controlling the suspension system which are five of the sixteen patent i'd like to focus on the in the issue of the corresponding struck out from mainly disputes to district courts or the function is construed by clout from the outcome will be the same there is no corresponding structure on this court in the medical instrumentation explained that the public is entitled to precisely know what kind of structure is covered here and the structure must be clearly linked to the function none of this is is it's present in this case and the best evidence is culled from zone proposed construction of the corresponding for controlling because they both appear in claim five of the six sixteen the third means post function limitation means for sensing piercing claimed one of the sixteen patterns so at least that the court has to deal with in light of the invalidity that said to prevent concealing times appearing all claims but claims six claim five of the six still allow me to finally get to the sensing means limitation of claim one of the six sixteen patent here you have a clear waiver of our club forms argument in the district court they proposed a microprocessor at the corresponding structure on what the corresponding structure allegedly is one point i have to answer in response to what they brought up in the wake of some brought up in the reply brief because some pointed to the interactive gift express case   legibly supporting its position as saying that they can point to other parts of the specification that folding of interactive skiffs express only applies if the positional main construction hasn't changed here the position of some has changed and a party may not do so on appeal and interactive gift express itself actually says as much in dicta with that i will conclude thank you very much  we're only defendants on three of the patents not the six one six having said that they are all related i want to briefly address the argument about claims one in sixteen that appellant raised it's interesting to note that in claims to sixteen responding to your point claim sixteen they're all pill controllers for sure but claim sixteen does say prevent any flow but interestingly right after that if you look on appendix page one nineteen it says to prevent any flow of fluid from one portion to the other portion of the chamber and thus prevent tilting so even though it's preventing any flow it's preventing tilting it doesn't say prevent any type of thing it says preventable thing so clearly throughout the spectrum they were using the word prevent they mean to stop there was absolutely no question about that there are indeed passages in the patents we agreed that talk about a damping function but as mr right back correctly points out all of those deals with the situation where we're talking about the shock absorbing function not the tilt function and i think the best example of that is if we look at the appendix page one eighteen again in the three five four pat h we can see that column five lines fifty one to sixty seven which appellants cites as indicating the shock absorbing function but directly after that after they talk about that they say as it is met with resistance cushioning occurs then it goes on to say should a tilt be encountered as a car goes around the turn the sensor will activate the solid only thirty six which will close the seal so that there is no longer any opening in piston assembly and lockley fluid in the bottom can then no longer enter the upper chamber and movement of the body downward is prevented so they very clearly distinguishing between cushioning on the one hand during the shock absorbing function and preventing any further movement at all when you get to an extreme tilt and the last point i want to raise is even though we are not sued on the six one six pattern they are all related patents and if you look at appendix page it says means to communicate a preset maximum angle because a sense of excuse me sensed by the sensing means to the ceiling means to reduce or prevent any further fluid flow and likewise it goes on to say in this prevent or d further movement of the piston so when they want to distinguish between preventing and reducing or or decelerating they know how to say that they clearly distinguishing and preventing means stop and it doesn't mean hinder  sensor in the in the paragraph directly after the rest of the structure in the specification as for the suspension control system again this is in the six one six and judge starr construed to basically require absolute