the court honors are the district courts construction should be reversed the terms adjustable and should be accorded their plain ordinary meanings there's nothing in the intrinsic record that requires this court to depart from the ordinary meaning these are late terms and as philips as said they should be given their plain in ordinary customary meanings that claim language in this case supports giving it's a plain ordinary meaning if you look at the claim language for what it really describes is a snapshot in time it looks at the assembly at the time it's configured to process material and at that time it looks to see if it's got three die components connected in the weights or received within language but most importantly what i to actually still says there's a first the second and the third and under view your view of the construction those terms no longer have meaning because you can take the third and make it cease to be third under your version of the construction by sticking it in between one two and now you have renamed it two i don't see how you can do that it's your construction would read out first second and third seemed to me it would not read up for second and third your honor because the way the claim is written you look at the plane at the time it's configured to process flow the claim doesn't talk about what it has to look like during the adjustment or after the adjustment so it only talks about you look at the construct claim and it says at the time that to configure process the material i have to have these three elements the first by component the second by component the third by component and then at that point the question becomes there's a position for the second die component and the position for the third eye component and can that from coming in i get it but when you look in order to understand how to interpret these words at the specification i guess i'm i'm thinking to be intrinsic record really doesn't support what you'd like us to interpret this as because let's start with there's usually two points in the in terms of record i'd like to deal with let's start with column six and about life forty nine i think this is the most probably one of the most relevant parts of the i feel like what you're seeking to do is to lead to all the die there's a difference between just sliding something a little bit left or right or totally taking it apart and reconfiguring it in so let me so when you look at the intrinsic record what you'll see read pretty extensively in the art so i have a sense of what different things could constitute retooling but i'm not sure physically disassembling the device and reconfiguring it isn't also rate within the umbrella of ra little left or right in that telescope and wait wait before we perform because part of the other problem is i feel like i stopped too short in my reading because your interest to me are very reasonable but i think the very next sentence takes away from kind of magic language in our world of the president mention is capable of reducing the time required to develop a suitable extrusion di to form a new product and to adapt to the changing extrusion materials and you have to have something that can reduce time and adapt to changing extrusion materials sliding something around a telescope in fashion absolutely meets those criteria having to stop take everything apart reconfigure it seem you don't have to do it with a single component is that where you're going i am going there but it's also just the mechanism all they've done is it's the same convention it's the same adjustability all they've done is it's just a few screws to remove and it's actually a set where what you do is instead of having it telescoping arrangement you have upset of lego blocks where you can just put in pieces to be able to make the same adjustment so it is actually meant to reduce the time it is used as in reducing the time it does everything that the configuration but i don't can't imagine that it is as efficient for example as what is actually disclosed the adjustable telescopic telescoping mechanism i'm not sure that because there's not language in here that specifically limits it to the telescoping method and it does well it's just that that's what we're trying to decide we're trying to say whether the word adjustable means adjustable in the manner disclosed in this patent or whether it means an includes an adjustability that requires taking it apart and reconfigure yet as opposed to simply a just to get it they see those as two different things and taking it apart in this context is really i very simple act it is not the kind of picking apart there that you're imagining it's simply taking a couple screws apart it's like in a second environment where they take some parts of the mandrel part be able to just it's a simple mechanical adjustment that they're making that really is different from the art and that's why the law kind of breaks down on who's your time was a little off to the left right now and i might say oh here sir let me adjust your tie i would i would sort of move it to the center but it seems like i would be going beyond adjusting if i said here let me take you  i components that you can move around exactly in the way we're talking about where they disassemble and reassemble and it's in it that you the same thing it gives you the same reduction in time it gives you the same ability to be able to quickly come up with a new di configuration for processing a new material that's exactly how it's used and the reason i keep going back to the single fix channel guy as a distinction is in the in the case law in this court in fact what everybody relies upon when you walk away from the ordinary meaning it's because within the spec there's something that says part of the ordinary meaning doesn't apply in here there's nothing there because what you're presuming this is the ordinary meaning i just gave you an example of about your time which i think we've just sort of stepped right over it i don't think i'd be adjusting your time when i take it off of your neck and then put it back on and retire i think you would still be adjusting my tire on it just i that may take a little extra time but it's different products but that's when that when would take the same amount of time to make these two sets of adjustments there's nothing in this record to that effect there's nothing anywhere as there's no evidence in this record anything vaguely like that there's no nothing with all the arguments you are making are quite frankly  expert testimony that explains these differences between retooling and adjustment or for the differences in the time savings between what you their product does and that the adjustment otherwise disclosed in the patent so i mean i can't make decisions on  context and there is evidence of this in this context are making permanent changes whereas in both the in the construction that we're asking for the dyes are packing about are not permanent changes the construction you're asking for i'd i thought you didn't of the ordinary meaning apple has as the ordinary meaning would cover having making changes to the dye that are not permanent so these are all be that's part of the difficulty in the record that's been developed here is that you didn't entire die because that the context of this is a six channel single piece di that's what they're talking about and you can see that in column one when they're talking about extreme di one of six includes a di component having a fixed channel to fix channel single component di and that skill in the art and we have this in the record people still in the art know that the changes that you make the second die to be able to deal with difficult terribly retooling a fixed channel single piece die involves affecting a permanent change that a multi component dot the way the patent has been written it specifically to the prior art being a single component fix channel dock where the retooling is permanent and that's in the record and what they are evident what their invention is is really the difference in the case law this is much more like philips then are any of the other cases the any it's not like our curtis right it's not like symantec because in those cases when you look at the ordinary meaning  embodiment of achieving this is with telescoping and they limit the claims to that telescoping method is improper and it is actually reading in the environment which is wrong under your case think  thank you ma'am please the code the that the issue picking up on where it left off as what's the ordinary meaning of these claim terms the just a limitation in the context of the patent which is what the court's case law says you look at the context of how it's used and the claims really answer the question right off the bat with picking up on what judge moore is talking about that order of the components the claim is for an assembly to die is somebody that has to have components that are in a specific order one two and three where the components are received in each other and adjustable along a logic to no access and so for the claim limitation that's actually a question for adjustable for example is the second component that has a position that's the just flow along watch toodle axis relative to the previous component and the claim goes on  media could be more components there's a first a second it's there but maybe there are more things even in this but those things maybe aren't really adjustable but maybe three and two can slide around i mean i just see the page seventy three lines thirteen about twenty four pieces instead of following the book that feels like retooling to me but in the context of this claim language where all you have to do is answer the question whether the position of that lego blocks can be adjusted along the longitudinal axis it doesn't specify the