placed between the shoulder and the neck of the container is the board construed the pattern the platform must be disposed on we're on top of in the same vertical space as the shoulder and the other is really that specifically be traced to the boards erroneous construction of the platform in the shoulder in the mentation but the boards construction really triggered a vast number of inconsistency  the board's construction is simply doesn't compass but will be the preferred about it i the boards and the claims used the term shoulder and the specification uses the term winning our position is those two are one and the same thing it's clear from the claims and the spec that those two are one in the same the board found that they're not the but they're different and so well that great but different in the particular sets if i'm remembering a page of the boy's opinion that shoulder is not limited to wing but sure i didn't see some i didn't see anything where the or if i understand limited to the crew environment it would have used that term right way and that's exactly what he had in mind that language does not exclude wings from shelters it simply says children are not limited to  wings in due respect that that is not our understanding of of the terminology there and really there is no other way to construe the shoulder other than that it is a wing in anything else is an improper wings of the shoulders are not interchangeable right right that's right and so there's clearly a different scope there the board had in mind and really the point being that the specification places the platform on the wing that the claims place the platform on the shoulder and if you don't if you get those two things are different structures you've got the platform in different places in the claims than you do maybe they changed the word coupling when they wrote the claims and they decided call the shoulder and said what face you this is thirty four forty nine a second is because that's the only thing that has a platform sitting on it there is no other part of this pattern where there's a platform on located between the shoulder and the neck that's correct there right but when you look at the clearing the shoulder is below the neck and the platform is disposed on the shoulder between ok so you have a thought at the lower portion you have a shoulder and then you have a platform and there's no overlap between those two things and then you have the next whereas what we're saying is and what the p it's a sign that the board misconstrued the claims and really divorce the claims wholly from the specification the far more logical way to read this pattern and these claims is consistent with the way it's described in the specification we don't have to rely on the alone i want to point to a few things in the claims i know a lot of focus has been placed on the shoulder in the wing but that's only one way to get there another way to get there is through the claim language which simply says that the platform is disposed on the shoulder meaning of that language is on top of what we know that because the same disposed on language is used in connection with the snap projection that projection is disposed on the platform there's no dispute in this case that in that context the snap projection must be placed on top of the platform in fact as we noted in our briefs counsel currency has admitted that the entire purpose of the platform is to elevate the snap projection so that it can engage a future on the lid and enable the clicking function of the invention and so it makes no sense to construe the disposed on language clearly in the context of the snap projection the pap platform differently from the way you would construe disposed on in the context of the platform in the shoulder but that's precisely what the board did here you can also look to claim five and claim six and get to the same spot claim know that there's not a platform wedged in between there because otherwise the snap projection would be adjacent to the platform and two to the neck so that claim reinforces our position as well and yet undercuts the board's construction claim six further highlights that point that claimed calls out a gap is provided between the second into this that projection and the next but because that's an added limitation overclaim five we know claim five through claim differentiation allows for there to be no gap between the snap projection and the neck and if there is no gap between the snap projection and the neck there can be no gap between the shoulder and the neck and therefore no platform between the shoulder and the neck and finally in the claims the use of the phrase upper end also undercuts the word's construction because we know from the claims that the neck both the neck and the shoulder extend from enjoin that the upper end of the container the neck goes up we're from the upper end the shoulder goes radio way outwards from the upper end and they joint at that point so once again no platform can be between the shoulder and the neck benefit but that's not what i'm hearing the argument about the benefit here really goes to kind of the grip of the driving for our objectives here wore the click lock feature the audible sound that's created when you are sufficiently tightened in the grip ability which is why you have these wings to give you leverage to twist to make it easier to hold hold onto and twist and with respect to the clicking sound that really is where and the heart of this issue here where the layered construction of the shoulder the platform the snap projection come into play because you have these wings practically speaking shoulders that are meant to allow the user to hold onto and grip easily and so you have th these rounded shoulders well in order for that to be able to engage the lead you need to prop it up and so this is why you have the platform on top of the shoulder which gives you an end in a preferred environment at least a level surface to work with and you clear the board addressed that issue only in the context of our conditional alternative motion to amend that issue does not affect the original claims moving to that is shared affix a construction as that's still the construction mccord did not answer to the board did not address that issue in the concert was it such as on the on the amendment and the platform issue do i understand your position to be that even if you lose on what is it claims one three seven the issued claims that that's plainly wrong because that was that express dependent claim and therefore the only basis for it's given to date by the board for denying the amendment rests on that erroneous claim construction of that that's correct your honor that's correct i think the court has a very easy decision to make assuming argument of the truth of what munchkin is arguing that the specification says the shoulder comes up to the neck and i disagree that still leads us into the problem that that is not what the claims say and if you look at the supreme court ruling in mccarty it describes exactly this case if you start bringing in principle strong belief in a move to a different body part no t shoulder and try to understand what shoulder is in the context of the other language including this interesting platform disposed mind which it really doesn't have to be limited to the only  so this shows in the at the top of the page in single space format the proposed climate and the problem here is is that in claim eight the  but i admit that one might consider that as a possibility but the senate something extends below does not at all mean in the normal english language what the underscore part is on the fourth line of underscoring which is the part that they want to clarify now now they want to say that there were in the prior clause means that the outer surface extends down from the neck really out and i submit to you that extending down from the neck is quite different from saying extends below the neck radially outward and if you look at no dispute that it has a snap projection there's a platform and i say the platform is disposed on the shoulder of the board agrees and the shoulder is extending regular outward below the neck you know i ask you this i guess while we're on this subject it's a slight the door but why did the board not say anything about your alternative interpretations of afghans and white men which i will tell you strike me as a stronger version of anticipation that version that the board adopted i don't know why they didn't react to that your honor i wish they had but i think that two anticipations are enough  is and s for the argument of the platform has to be disposed on the shoulder if as i said and in our brief if you look at whiteman it is disposed on the shoulder shoulder with the number ten and the platform is number eleven sitting literally on top of the shoulder this makes the claim even as munchkin wants to  claim it to say we want to we want to make that part narrower to be more particular saying it has to connect to the next well fine let's assume that there's a specification support for that and they would have the opportunity to make that claim but the problem with claim eight the more severe problem claim it is is now the platform problem and i think your honor appreciated that they want to change a platform into basically anything under the sun th changes the contour and i don't think you can help but reach the conclusion that that is broadening at least the platform has some sort of a meaning of with a degree of flatness and there is substantial evidence in the record to you tell the world of cup making people that there's a platform i don't think of a pyramid as a platform i think of something generally flat only ground that the board found broadening out on the grounds that the original platform term has to be substantially flat and the revised proposed revised language is not that which is it didn't say that the broad language covers pyramids without a top surface or something that goes away and anything that could be considered a platform it just said it goes beyond substantially flat it is that's approximately correct your honor i think that they said they even relaxed their interpretation of the platform to say generally flat and that and they compared generally flat if i remember correctly with what's in this new claim which doesn't even include flat there's no degree of flatness in this proposed claymates platform and that's the problem there are many many other problems that the board did not reach with regard to claim it there's other priority that we haven't talked about and i want to add one little comment about disposed on coun raised the final limitation of the claim with regard to dispose on the platform but the rest of that claim goes on to define what it means to be disposed on as we're in th and last one to say that it should mean the same thing as the prior element that so that the term should be used consistently and in the fourth claim element it says dispose on the shoulder and in the fifth not appear on the top of my head i think that the board was correct this was the simplest reason to deny entry of claim eight i think that  e the board had to find the broadest reasonable interpretation and did and i have not seen any argument as to why the board reached in a room his conclusion as to what the broadest reasonable interpretation is what i hear is a philips argument and in p p c broadband this court explained very clearly the two are different phillips might be one  is not unreasonable and affirmed on that basis they explained the reasons why there's two different standards of interpretation for the claim language that applies here the claims as written read on the prior art and much can much to import language from a specification to distinguish the claims over prior art then to support the claims that is improper was that parents or caretakers were finding liquid was coming out of the cup win and they're giving it to their toddlers and as they went back to plato as it happened a couple leaks in the answer is because you didn't tighten the cup anough solution let's provide a way so that by being able to apply torque to the wings now fine let's assume that the wing is the shoulder makes no sense whatsoever to put a wing as close as you can get it to the neck because that would be the thing you  would not do you want the wing to be as far away from the neck as possible and the specification even says the wing extends outward from the side of the cup that makes sense to me if i want to maximize the amount of torque i can apply to a circular b i'm going to go out as far as i can that's like putting a wrench on it and a lid that you are trying to open you get a the longer the lever the better you're going to be more torque you're going to apply and when you look at figure eleven of this patent your hono and i have this in my brief the platform is number sixty eight if claim yes if claim one reads on this embodiment then the shoulder has to be under that and the shoulder if i look at bigger limb and shoulders no where near the neck and the answer that much can provide says well that's not number honour's a couple points but we're not asking the board where this court to import limit any limitations from the specification i went through five different claim limitations in claim one that get you to our claim construction and that undercut the board's claim construction in this case also on the issue of which embody meant this is the claims must read on we have to remember that the applicants during prosecution elected species one when asked to do so species one corresponds to the preferred embodiment at figures one through eleven so a bare minimum these claims must at least read on the claimant the preferred embodiment if not be limited to it regarding of the claim construction issue because as i mentioned earlier we have a number of different claim limitations that you can run through to get to the same point including most notably the platform limitation is disposed on the shoulder regarding mr mans of those argument about the wing and where he thinks it should practically be i mean figure five of the specification tells you exactly where the when you as it gives you the distance that distance d three that extends it extends from the neck all the way out to the end that's the wing that's the shoulder and we know through that figure alone that we don't have to worry about mr man's argument about the shoulder not extending far enough out of being tucked in close to that of the neck because it's the whole thing and it starts at the neck loving care mr means we're also asked this court to fill the void that the board's construction is created by literally inventing a feature in this patent called the annular surface that appears nowhere in the claim it appears nowhere in the specification it's not numbered it's not depicted in the figure figures and that is important and they would have they would have this court place invention altering significance on a made up feature we would submit that munchkin's construction which makes sense of both the claims and the spec together is the far more proper way to construe these claim a final point about the broadening argument that mr and so made it's notable that you would like to have it both ways say that you know it's simply something in the specification there's no disclosure in the specification of a generally flat but there's no discos disclosure in the specification of a platform being next to the shoulder as opposed to on top of the shoulder you can't have those two issues differently when you're dealing with the original claims versus the motion to