one regarding the battle of the other regarding the controller connected to the valve and the from both of those issues are governed by the well settled law of the circuit dictating how claim terms are going to be construed and what the proper scope and meaning to be basis in the record for summary judgment of infringement on behalf of the plaintiff on the issue of the valve everyone here agrees that there is a valve inside the pump the question is whether that val elegant clear claim terms are to be given their full breadth of the plan for an area meaning unless one of the narrow exceptions applies one is words and he has served as the as his or her own  there has been an expressive disavowal or a disclaimer of claims killed for example in response to an office action and the third is where the claim construction would render what were a certain claim construction would render the invention as claimed in opera configuration unless of course there is some disclaimer just as i'll do you for you to win is the valve inside the qs products have to operate independently of the pump in the sense that the pump doesn't need the valve inside of the but in this case your honor we don't believe that and that has to be the case because in your view the valve inside the qs products can sort of serve double duty in the sense that it can meet the claim limitation of a valve while at the same time be one component of the claimed at the same time that's one element of our position your honor the other element is that in fact based on the expert analysis and reports the plaintiffs expert dr steve that in fact the valve and the pump operate independently that if the valves components that are co house with a pond are removed as he did in his experimentation set for them as expert reports the pump still pumps the citations to the joint appendix on that point are thirty three zero six to eleven and thirty three thirty one to thirty seven so under either of those plain language is the valve in fluid communication with the pump preventing back flow is one way that the valve in the pump can be in fluid communication with each other and that goes to the point of the valves that are co house internally within the  are such force in our lives there are also other adjustable valves in each of the four versions of the hughes products that satisfy the function of the valve that are also connected and in fluid communication with the  question your honor raises regarding the overlapping function and structure is similar to the decisions of this court and the paps digital camera case from twenty fifteen and the rest for vs later in case in two thousand and one and both of those cases the issue was whether to separately claim structures what in one case interface device and data transmit receive device direction or it was linked to module portion and channel lever torsion require separate even though there are two separate claim terms yes in fact they can be satisfied by one integral structure that song in this country but there is it's hard for me to think of coming up with legal doctrine from cases that are very specific as to what the claim language says what the device we're talking about is what the specifications are as it seems to meet each of them and we including that and kind of can be differentiated from each other but i'm not seeing a clear rule other than that that's a good point your honor and you're exactly right because the clear rule is that the intrinsic evidence is supreme each case is specific based on what the intrinsic evidence in that case says so in the bakken case for for example your honor that you raised that case in that actually it was determined that the two separate playing terms could not be satisfied by one integral structure because to do so based on the  n in that patent in that case it would render the invention operable and inconsistent with technological concepts taught by the patentee that's not the case here with a valve in the palm anymore than it was rocks or for me was going to ask you we're dealing here with claims eighteen nineteen and twenty and i think the correct me if i'm wrong but i think the focus of the the appeal hears on the third  but those are structural imitation when you're talking about where something is placed relation something else correct there are structural imitation do we have to worry about how these things operate at all since i mean as i read this claim and in particular the limitations we were just discussing everything is just where is something physically located does of operability come into play because there are other terms there's other language in the claim is that he is those separate structures or separate playing terms together in terms of whether their integral co housing are separate for example the term fluid communication that describes the functional operation between the pump and the valve the term connected to determines how the controller interacts directly or indirectly with the palm and the valve so is there no disclaimer or disavowal or special definition given in the specification of the prosecution history to determine connected to rather quite to the contrary the specification is chock full of examples of direct connections and indirect connection separate claim term for fire separate structures which really is turning the law on its head it's the other way around in terms of connected to the district court added the four additional limitations which are not found in the specification certainly independent or physical reasons wireless i mean to what degree do we have to go into all those details if the court were to confirm that either an indirect or direct connection satisfied the claimed limitations that would be enough in fact even if this court affirmed the martin phase construction of the district court for connect it to being joined united or linked to that would be enough for summary judgment on that one term interaction not not being duct taped together as we describe it in the grid but what about indirect record direct connection connected to can be a direct connection it can also be an indirect connection in the sense that you have to go through some other component in order to you know activity that downstream component and so therefore it could be fairly understood to be an indirect connection is that enough most all of the  debate here yes right that would be enough to because i you know the interaction term that you were just mentioning is a little more vague and seems to potentially be migrating away from the notion of connection first occasionally destructive describes the function of the controller in the in the example of a check valve as operating the valve by adjusting the fluid pressure by means of acting on the pump but to go to your arse question district court in the first instance gets to decide when the remains of when the need to have a jury trial or whether or not there are not your honor is correct there is a big difference in this instance on this record us as preferred construction of connecting to connected to refers to being directly or indirectly interacting to interact with in an operative sense not to be physically necessarily touching not necessarily to use your honor your hon s concept in the sense of the boat is attached to a dock through a rope that would be in direct physical attack attachment what's important in this case on this record with this patent is how the functions to go to that afternoon your honors the work gary eastman and my associate candy when representing strategic operations in this matter strategic operations blood pump systems not rocket science just for reference strategic operations throughout this case has been referred to as stops and i will maintain that consistency here being accused of ice is a i v type bag filled with fake blood a pump that pumps that fake blood to fake wounds with the controllers on and the hurdles of like my colleague said they must convince a court that the pump in the valve as claim can be construed to be the same device and second that they must be connected to be an indirect connection so i'd like to take the first one which affirm the underlying case but let's focus first on the integrated device this court has clearly established a hierarchy for examining cases just like this and while there have been presumptions of this word drawn around presumptions of that thrown around it's not what's at issue here what's at issue here is a very close reading of the claims the claims that issue and claim and not eighteen that's asserted it's got to be given its ordinary meaning and minimum roots of factual question for a jury or the district court to decide as a factual matter where you are you'd be dialed into that issue earlier in your questions and when you're looking for agree with you and powell on the other hand include a specific teachings in the specification that integrated those two devices in one and it specifically states with particularity that it is fully the absence of a disclaimer it's not the opposite which seems to be theory you're suggesting no not at all your honor what i'm suggesting is the cake the claim itself controls and last there's an exception i'm not suggesting that we're going to construe it any one way or the other except as the claim itself demands and the claim here calls out two separate devices well what's more a lister live of the connection in the various components is the way those are connected together and  you know we're not here to decide that factual i agree with you your honor there is information in the record that shows that the function of the pump while impaired still manages to move fluid so and aren't we also cabin by the construct claim constructions for the terms pump and bow so really we have to look at well if valve is construed as a device that regulates directs or just the flow of with in a pompous construed as a device that moves or transfers fluid by mechanical action the maybe that's what we need to look at and use and apply agree with you on that is precisely the process and i present to you that the district court did exactly that they took those basic claim construction terms well i think the concern is that the district court appeared to just as a  page twenty one where he's talking about the interconnectivity as between the pomp and the control or the valve and the controller and the pump in the valve and the pump in the valve requires a hydraulic rate food communication  the become trawlers was there something at twenty one you want to point to one you know fleet specific focus is by the district court is if the claim allows for an indirect connection between the valve near the top of it yes it would have expressed we require that a controller be connected to the mouth but because the connection between the pump and i was already claimed including communication with language and elements three there was no need to claim a second connection but e simply put nothing in this claim liberating language gives rise to it in firms that the pump and the valve can be integrated with the mandatory language of the claim where they are specifically connected to the controller then look to the specification to see if it's been modified but it wasn't not a single instance in the specification says that the pump and the valve can be integrated in fact the pump and valves are at the end of the fluid lines and others are controlled by a controller such as a solo or a check valve by its very nature is not controlled by a control it's passive that only allows fluid going one way so the requirement that it's connected to the controller if you adopt the internal valve approach to the separateness versus integrated renders that  i'd like to move on to the second point which is the construction of connected to the joint united or linked to this the joint the district court we were discussing this with mr park the district court construe connected to his joint united are linked to i soon that and please tell me for both sides agreed there was no problem with that construction that's right ok that was a degree and then the issue seems to be whether there was very are going beyond that and i guess i would look to page twenty one of the joint pendants and its uses the fact that element four requires a connection between the control wrong are that i think that is one of the issues that scared govt has taken issue with but the focus if you focus on the claim language itself it is an indirect connection already exist between the pump and the valve and that's through the flu communication so if they really intended an indirect communication indirect link then there is no need for the direct link between the controller and the valve or the controller in the pump is that in direct connections already there doesn't answer the to keep in mind a person of ordinary skill in the are there not sophisticated high school education through medical training but what's important here is the president and or suggested construction of my schedule of indirectly the pump interacts directly or indirectly so that would be the phrase to interact directly or indirectly instead of connected to it which was previously construed as join united only to that is absolutely inconsistent with all other claims in this application and we don't need to look any further than flattering figures th the intervening component between the controller and the now right there are and in each case where they say it is connected in or indirectly to they further covered some of their environments and not all of them bought exactly right your honor and i'll refer you ever so briefly to the footnote nine of schedules reply where it says that it recently attained claims to a valid list there is a very direct connection he knows how to think that by using the phrase directly connected i think that the district court's impression and markman decision of joint united or link to adequately covers those because it doesn't always require a specific direct connection link to could be an indirect link but it has been operable link and that's what's missing here there's not a single thing the controller can do to control the valve within that if we take the proposed claim construction firms get coal and we insert that into clay nineteen you can see exactly how nonsensical it is and i'll just quote a couple of them because i think you get the point looking at claim one thousand which depends from playmaking and which is asserted in this case says claim nineteen where in said at least one one site i'm going to insert scheduled proposed construction a first wo site conduit interacts indirectly with said valve a first woman site interacts indirectly with said first one side conduit because if you say it's directly or indirectly you have to assume that it's one or the other you can't just randomly pick you need to give under section one twelve clarity as to what you claim the invention is that's not the case here so let's get close attempting to eliminate the choir metaphor controllable valve by making the direct versus indirect suggestion the district court got it right join united are linked to covers the body was claimed here based upon his scrutiny of claim eighteen itself it dictates those control connections but you know the way connected back to the controller and that satisfies the claim that the controller can do whatever it wants but unless somebody manually goes into just that valve to let fluid go through that line there's nothing going through that line thank that i mentioned earlier have no such speech and a lot of the circuit is that even if there's only a single embodiment in the specification that doesn't disclose the urge to claim construction it's not limiting again unless there is an expressed word of manifest disclaimer to sort out on the summary judgment order page twenty one that counsel mentioned regarding the judge's analysis but there is a notice function of patent plaintiffs in this instance the valve and the punk could be separate if you would be told how as they could be integral what could be inside the other they could be in separate parts of the fluid line so the point here is that the fact that the claim construction we urge is broad enough to capture all of those alternative embodiments the district or seem to focus on one specific environment and say if this weren't intended to be separate there would be no need to have a connection between the pump the controller in the pump and in control of the valve but again in light of the notice function the broader interpretation provides that notice by saying there are many different options as there are many different configurations and the issue of whether both sides agree on the just records construction of connected to from the market in phase we do not agree that that's the proper plant construction the point in our grief was that even under that claim construction we could still prevail but we believe that the proper construction