want only a long it gives me agree with the district court that your proposed construction which was what extent this is doing is indefinite and doesn't care if the indefinite but let's assume that if we independently scoured the record week conceivably come up with something that satisfies the definiteness requirement for example going back to the prior art and the disc say adding on the syrians come up with some objective boundaries so i think this is an impact of considering playing construction in indefiniteness together the court had both of these legal issues in front of at the same time so it seems to us that if that if that is that's the court's view that you have to actually build all these parameters into the kind of structure and i think our say don't think that if you read the bios in case for example that's the approach this court took at all it did not impose the boundaries of the claimed term into the claim that's the guidance the court wants to make and i think the appropriate thing to do would be to remain so you have to consider all these issues together but we're just that leave us if you've never made the argument so we are independently allowed to go through the record in some up with something that we think satisfies the reasonable certainty and well so these issues are coming up together in this appeal it seems to me there is authorization court that's what the court wants to do to resolve these two legal issues together but that's and as i said that's not the guidance that the court has given th far in the bios of cases very clear that claim construction said nothing about the lower of the upper boundary at issue there in the court said very clearly that there was enough in the record for  york to understand where the lower and the upper boundaries were as well as perhaps the side boundaries as well not to the claims or so the issue that was frankly being resolved here with respect to long it was a single dispute is it or one dimensional limitation or two dimensional station and that's what the parties argue over and they were they were as often is the case in point construction dealing with a term that is pulled out of out of the claim reply arge in isolation anything other than claim a you can't get the upper if we think we need an upper boundary we can't borrow it from another claim to make claim one definite can only well certainly claim it stands on its own we've made that point brief but i would argue actually if you look a the upper boundary in that case does not come out of the claim it's often came out of the environment in which the apparatus is intended to be used it's an exercise piece of exercise but the court said the outer boundary is the with of the human hand and similarly here it's very my basic premises you have guidance for the to the person where he's going the art with the lower bound views and what the upper boundary is coming from the claims the specification in the prosecution history is too long how could your addition of the word along g the of of extending around the core and put that back into the claim it's very clear that as the experts testified this structure has to extend beyond what those proposed have satisfied and dealt with those issues so i don't think there's any requirement again that the clean construction answer all the questions in the case again i would just turn back to the sports guy ends and bios if i don't really know what's going on take a term out of the claim and try to argue that everything rides on one word here is not what the exercise was supposed to be engaged in here it's well accepted this is the one word that happened i might agree if it wasn't the key o consider indefinite because we can look at the specification and the like and see that a reasonable person would understand that it has a meeting under a sufficient to satisfy  that in the claim and in the pattern there's not a definite but your construction renders it indefinite your honor i think you know my reaction that is i don't think that was the inten set up and you know we are as i said our view here is you have to read the claim as a whole in order to understand it's only where you take the initiative and come up with what we think is the reasonable certainty claim consider that answers the claim construction read read in the context of all the other limitations in the claims i don't think anybody would for example note no expert or lawyer on the g c side of this would argue that this nevertheless covers districts that were distinguished from prosecution history you tell me same going back to the bias against the very same construct there you have to look at this invention in the context of the first ball through the let me ask you to tell me long enough to this got to be something at the end of that sentence so i think what we've said in the brief is long enough to function to draw heat away from the light and distributed out through the films the various elements of the claims the heat flows down through the spreader down through the core and out to out through the fins long enough for that to function and  i understand that's the world we live in the i mean the claim construction was over the word this comes up now and frequently in our cases where obviously phillips another saying you have a claim term contacts but it's a little hard to do when markman is done based on answer to that is we looked at the process and didn't find any precedent where this court could take their successful clean construction fix it for them and the reason i think that's not the case is i think it would set a bad precedent because what you would have a situations where clearly trying to cover products as broadly as they can for infringement purposes would advocate for claim constructions as broad overbroad as possible if it gets if they get it district court judge like we did who actually takes time and effort and really goes through and looks at this definiteness inquiry and determines that the claims are indefinite will just come up to the federal circuit to say you know what we gave it a shot can you fix it force now can you send it back in and tell the chicago with the construction supposed to be i don't think that's what we want here in so do you mean that leaving aside even the claim construct and there was a dispute here and papers filed in response as many to the indefiniteness inquiry absolute are you saying there's kind of a waiver thing unless they posit it at the we didn't see any precedent that said you could i think what happened in laos it was your friend yes i'm biased say that was were jase came back from the supreme court under the new standard and this court looked at it under the new standard and determined there was stuff in the intrinsic record that allowed there to be limitations i think that's a different situation they didn't change the claim to structure they didn't say we're now going to make this a definite clinker structure the problem they have here on both terms i submit it's exactly the same on the heat sink as it is along did they in their briefing they really should on the extrinsic evidence it's exactly right there is an intrinsic record an argument in each prosecution history that creates this uncertainty that when you read it in light of the claim construction that the advocated to i think confuse the issue if you look at our group you can see that it was expensive all of the six for it but there is stuff in the nine nine nine in the ninety nine prosecution and let me just read that for you because i don't think this came across clear because in their gr they didn't even address it which we found kind of telling but in in the prosecution of the nine nine nine and this is a j a five nine one two they had overcome the prior art the roller reference and the way they did that is the added the fact that roller didn't heat sink in and i quote the language that they used there they said and roller by the way we we have that in the the appendix i get to say for that but roller was a lighting assembly that had a light source control one inner connected lighting assembly of any thermal communication between the control components and the heat sink which is their big new invention as would be necessary to provide heat sink and the reason they said that is because  roller there was an intervening layer between the heat sink and the control model just like we've argued in this case you can't have something shielding that that's not heat seeking and that's that's what the record would show however their construction which they got at the district or whole plane we're dealing with the minimal which deals with the fins and so we have all of a bottom line limit we don't have a top line but by necessity is can't go on forever we're dealing with particular device times is for appropriate construction for long that's the one we came up with and that scene is that that in your view consistent with the disk shape that we're talking about in the record we agreed that that would be consistent with the ship yes now whether or not this in we've done that for a long dated long it is not used in the specification when we go to the prosecution history what do we have we have this prior art and they keep saying well you have fins running we don't know what size of fins are all kinds of different sizes i don't think that gives it in the determination in generally what we're talking about why is why is that not sufficient well because i think your honor to me you're still in that zone of uncertainty one of skill in the art again you can say that just shape what to what but also admit to this court you often hear arguments about invalidity where somebody loses under one two one and three and maybe the clink destruction of the patent he advocated for that uses broader than it should have been because they're trying to pull in more infringement stuff but they still lose because they make it so broad that it pulls and her this court doesn't say i'm in and now give you an opportunity to go back and fix construction make it narrower and give we think should be the proper clink destruction because they've won their claim to structure so they don't they don't really have a right think this court as a practice typically goes back and again i'll take it in one of two one of the free world and says you can sue this too broadly it's invalid in the prior are but we're going to let we're going to fix it for you because you got it wrong i think that's what the supreme court was saying when you need to temper that temptation that they're giving panties ok so if we take this out of the claim construction will why is that is that a waiver kind of argument if we're just looking at the question of what how do we if the court said even earlier today we didn't raise i don't think any parties raise mr clean construction or in this appeal nobody should argue that claim constructions wrong i mean we would like we probably would have liked to have but the court of law that now leaking out i don't think there's i'm trying to think if there's anything in the record i mean certainly serious but certainly in the if something sure that are insulated i can tell you all the accused products have insulation between the control module and the heat sink they're gives us any more clarity or takes us out of that zone of uncertainty that we're currently in with both the extremes i mean i think the most is that i try to follow you here are you now arguing that even if we ignore this really broad claim construction that there is no claim construction that we can get to that would make this patent definite no your honor i don't know that i'm arguing that i don't know little different question because i'm trying to get outside of the plane construction right but let's just assume we're not to talk about plate construction we're going to look at this in terms of and we have this claim that uses were elongated and we have to i see my time is up are there any other questions and give thank you and i think that the examiner and the applicant here had a very rich discussion of the what are the lower boundaries in the upper or the lower boundaries clearly not the structure disclosed in rising hour and series all we know that and th invention was intended to be used in one last comment there was some discussion about the prosecution history of the ninety nine patent and i believe counsel stated it's undisputed we hardly dispute what the roller