district court found within the scope of the sixty two act we are of the opinion that the standard required of the disavowal of mainly clear explicit unambiguous words of manifest exclusion has not been then well your honor i understand that most of the time we are talking about some back and forth between the patent office that then leads to disembowel and this is a situation where the statements are within the specification themselves however if you really examine the statements in context we think it's very clear that these statements are all qualified and they're all very clearly qualified and accordingly their scope in their region are put ability are limited the the statements in the spec talk about the then pitfalls or disadvantages of using in printing but only in certain circumstances they're talking about ink printing only when you're talking about higher volumes of prin low volumes prince and what the statements point to using words like that usually and typically very qualified i'm not saying all the time but most importantly they're talking about when under certain conditions when you're i would agree with you that usually they probably don't however in this case while they are used if you if you really look at it it does say the photographic titles have a very standard way but it does say that they are typically use photographic prints and i know it sounds really similar so we want to say photographic praising oh that's the only way to get photographic print but that's not actually the case and secondly the second term at issue here graphic prints of photograph one of the terms that was defined however that's not the subject of the appeal today and but the court did find that that does serve a sufficient seed basis but not because they are the same thing but because of where they appear in the claims it is it is very clearly notice to someone reading it that that's what it's actually talking about is the graphic print that is referred to earlier but not that they are the same thing instead a photographic print is a type of graphic print a graphic print is any print done by any method and here the only qualification is that it looks like a photograph that it be a photograph of quality but within the broader universe of graphic prints photographic print is one of those types but it is not the only type you have all sorts of different printing methods including ink printing but there's electrostatic printing in lithographic printing and many different ways to get to print a graphic print the that is the larger universe whereas a photographic print is just a piece of that so in addition to these statements being qualified with applying to only low volume situations but also not really about the central purpose of the invention i think you can see when you look at the title when you read the spec the invention is really about advertising space it's really about utilizing floor space that wasn't previously utilized and it's about creating a lifelike symbol simulation excuse me to be used to utilize that space it's not about a printing process the inventor she did not invent a new printing process of the invention it's not from a printing process nor to a type of printing process she only discusses it in here because she 's required to give the preferred body a minute to give the best mode and back then in a low volume situation the best way to do it was to use conventional photographic printing process but that's not the only way that you can do it and i think the quietly a person of skill in the art when they read the claims and when they read the specification would know that and there's also some discussion in the file history that supports that as well and lastly if you if you do think or you do come to the opinion that photographic prints the only way to make them is to use conventional printing processes because of a differentiation those are there something different than a graphic prints and so to apply that same disa decision because they looked at the end of the court looked at the entire specification of the prosecution history and concluded appropriately that the patentee clearly an ambiguous lee and un why it was important and why it made a difference how the paint was made and she specifically said focusing on the quality of the images that could be reproduced she said nk printed images simply do not achieve the level of quality that was necessary for her invention and she was very clear she said nk printed images are not a viable alternative to the photographic tile of the present images that are printed using ink printed but that was not of sufficient quality for the work they invent and she made that perfectly clear in the specification and throughout the prosecution history she creating a contrast here she's saying there are two different types of prints photographic prints and there are ink prints so she distinguished the two and she focused turned tension on the lab i mean on the former and distinguished and then disavowed the latter she was she could not have been more clear this case is virtually identical to the court's this court's decision in signing it's broacha way pentacle to this court's decision that precisely that she disparaged inc pointed she disparaged inputs and it wasn't based on the volume the volume went to the cost effectiveness perhaps but the volume did not not but that is the distinction that the patentee create photographic prints as the patent he described and claimed them in the written description were of a very high quality and all we know is that they were of a higher geographic but i would assume they print more than one i was in that print in very high volumes and that's the point that they can make thousands of them at a time and then it becomes cost efficient to make that and also i don't think the national geographic reference itself would make a good f believe that the doctrine does stand for not only technologies that didn't exist and then come into the fold later and later after the atmosphere but also that will cold war over but what the play means and is our position that while the statements talk about some of the then short comings those shortcomings then disappear because there are advances in technology as we see every day ink prints have become it back then when the patent he was actually making this product she had i not quite sure but it's a big old printer it takes a whole lot of money and it's very very difficult and a lot of time now that you could hit print right now judge moore and i'm sure you would print if you were looking at a picture you would print out a picture on an inkjet printer made of it so it's a whole lot easier to do that and the doctrine of after rising technology i believe the case we cited is johnson versus johnston and that i believe it stands for the fact that not just new technology but technology that did exist but then starts to predominate later is covered within the scope of the claims and the other thing i wanted to say is that mr weaver talked about the signage case and i believe the case you have two structures that are disclosed and then one is despairs and then the other one is claimed however that's not the case here because while there may be two types of printing that are disclosed and then you have one type that is seemingly dispa albeit in a limited fashion with some qualifications then both types are claims because a graphic print encompasses all types of prints and i think it's very clear that she is trying to do that because if she meant to say photographic prints all the time then she would have said that that's not what claim twenty one says it says graphic prints and there's some discussion in the file history when they're talking about i believe it's the travis reference and patty had a difficult time getting this back over the travis reference and it's very clear at least on page nine forty four of the record that travis is printed product and it is called graphic prints and i think she probably could have got the pattern very easily had she said oh but we don't meaning prints but that's not she did she had to go back and forth three or four times and never did she make that stink because that's not the right distinction because in prints are covered and in travis it's very clear that talks about ink prints and they call it graphic prints and she uses the same term graphic prints in order to encompass all types of printing including