we have another unbalanced henry griffiths versus a question that roger cleveland gulf company tailor made and i think we're not going to hear from  judgment based stipulated judgment based on a claim construction by the district court and we appear today here primarily to answer the court's questions or to questions that may have arisen out and in layman's terms we can think of this as determining that when i go off or hits a ball the bottom of the cough club or the saw was its call of the golf club  contact with the ground approximately in the middle of that sole that's a slump sometimes too much pressure yes and this sort of fitting is tested by the apparatus call for that translucent surface to further include means for employ it tactically soft appearance there too that's the heart of the appeal isn't it that it that is a one twelve six claim form and yes both sides agree on that yes and there's nothing more than that describes that no more structure when they say the feature is enhanced by and then give a color does that require on your means plus functional language that that then becomes the structure or does that just enhanced the structure which is otherwise described as plastic well it will in other words does it have to be blum that's further enhanced his and whether it whether it's enhanced or further and we believe that it's clear from the claims and what happened to the claims during the prosecution that you first have to have the translucent surface and then the translucent surface has to further include some means for providing the to actually soft appearance and so the plastic as discussed in the disclosure that you've already pointed to is said in some places in the disclosure to translucency so it can provide a translucent surface and other places in the disclosure it says but that translucency itself can impart the soft appearance take a long time to get to the question does it have to be blue and white or is is that a requirement or is that merely an enhanced sing feature or does the further as judge  presiding judge suggest make it a mandatory part of the structure that corresponds to the function in this one twelve six form as as we believe this claim and the means clause in it was be construed as the district court did he in order to satisfy the means clause that color would have to be in service would have to be an so so the construct of the clay construction in this case and i'm sure that if we're seeing the claim it's completely reproduced in page five of our brief becomes the question of well did the patentee inform the public was the property that he was seeking to protect and in this appeal we submit that both of the appellant's briefs both the principle brief and the reply brief failed to tell it for why the judgment should be changed they stipulated the judgment follow based upon the district court's claim construction but they haven't demonstrated how that construction should be claimed changed and if changed how they reply brief they purported to preserve issues for appeal that were not the main issue that your honor mentioned as the as the focus of the appeal they fail to mention things that list them as issues for appeal in their principle brief what is your translucent surface look like it's it's perfectly clear plastic perfectly clear is that translucent is transparent in the context of the definition of the way the words reviews use in this case it's transparent it's not translucent as the term has been construed as and it's not like blue or off white no as an issue on appeal and all they although they move it mentioned in passing in their reply brief they don't argue it further their principle brief did not separately argue the translucent surface all they discussed in co njunction with the means clause but in their reply brief interesting lead at page seven they all timidly admitted and i quote the correct meaning of translucent surface is a surface which permits the construction at the district court adopted so even though they say there preserving the meaning of translucent for appeal we say that they have again admitted it's what the district court cited and in both of their briefs they arguing the meanings plus function was seem to be arguing it as if the preceding way which name way the words translucen surface further included are not even in the claim and it seems to us as a matter of claim english that you have to pay attention to the preceding words in the claim to understand how the means clause relates to the other limitations in the claims not have to refer the draft to claim i agree so we we believe that the district properly construed the word translucent they paid attention to the prison word further and because of their strict attention to the words of the claims they properly construed the means was and that as we said before the appellant has not demonstrated why the claim construction should be changed or why some different construction should affect the judgment in this case