you may proceed thank you good afternoon may it please the court my name is catherine clune and along with my co counsel carter philips we represent the appellant in this case arlington industries are here today your honour's because the district court fundamentally misconstrued the scope of the patents in this case i misinterpreting a straightforward term spring metal adapter as requiring a split ring so that the diameter would easily change as opposed to its ordinary meaning an adapter made of spring metal the district court's construction is not supported by the intrinsic record in this case because nothing in the claims the specification or the prosecution history so restricts the claims in that manner specification shows the number of figures all of them have that is correct your honor but this court has said time and time again that even if the specification only disclosed one in body men the claims are not limited to the figures or the one in body mint but more importantly in this case it's only the figures that all show a split ring in describing the invention in the specification there is actually only seven lines in the entire specification that describe the adapter is being split and that is the description of the preferred and body image so while there are many lines to find it is not split well there's no actual number your honor but what's important about that is well first of all the originally filed claims of the one six four patent are festive occasions so show me your statement to me was there's a lot of support in this specification disclosing an embodiment that doesn't have a split so show me by column and line number where that support is well first of what i was getting to about the original file claims originally filed claims one and two of the one hundred four are actually part of the specification because the zero five zero is actually a continuation so those claims actually become part of the specification and the arlington is entitled to rely on those particular claims and that is undisputed that those claims did cover both the split and announce the ring number two there is seventy two instances in the specification track you're right it is the first one that they're describing numbers wise it's the first embodiment that has said that line twenty the not forming a complete circle it doesn't even call it split but it's is not a complete circle  every one in the specification that is correct none of the other embodiments are described as having a less than a complete circle so you have three that are not in words at least described as having less than a complete any description of an embodiment that says that the that does not have an incomplete circle we would submit that the use of the term spring steel adaptor without the additional feature left in a complete circle is  the scription to those skilled in the art because it was not known that if in fact the prior art of rocker was known in the arts and those killed in the art are entitled to arkansas presume to know the it was very well known that adapters could be split or unsplit so when the use of the term spring modeled after it's being used it is covering both a split and an unflattering and only when the additional feature of less than a complete circle is added claims of the one six four are also very relevant we think when you're looking at you know we're talking here about the specification but we think it's very important in this case as this court has said time and again that claim construction analysis begins with the words  claim so before we jump to the specification and i think it's very important to look at the fact that it was a very expressive use by the patentee that when the adapter is intended to be split they used an additional language being less than a complete circle or they use the language quote split ring to indicate that the adapter must be split and when you look at how that the district court claim construction would be applied in this case to the one six or patent claims both claims two of which are already used the word split rang it shows really the absurdity of this construction now the weight claims twelve and thirteen would be red it would say a split split circular spring metal adapter and this court has said time and again that the preference for plain construction is to give meaning to each and every term used in all of the claims the district court and bridgeport fail to point to even acknowledge the fact that the all fifteen claims of the one six four patent already had either a split limitation or a being less than the complete circle limitation so this particular construction makes language in every single claim of the one six four superfluous which goes against this court's precedent number two the one sixth the excuse me the old five is a direct continuation of the one six four patent and is this court held in saunders when you have a parent application that has a split or a being less than complete circle limitation in every single claim and you have a direct continuation and only some but not all of the claims have that limitation it's a very strong indication that the claims that do not include that limitation are not so limited outcome of this claim construction because it will read this case will resolve a number of the issues in that case because that was a jury trial and there was you know a number of other issues other than claim construction and it was actually quite far behind this case so that's why the parties actually jointly moved to stay that case for the convenience of the court now looking back again at these courts and if the claims the differences amongst the claims are of particular are particularly important in this case because not only again was split ring already used but the less than a complete circle limitation was particularly used in the one to one through six of the zero five zero and it was not used whatsoever disclosure it doesn't actually contain its own disclosure it actually relies on the one six four patent through the one one zero six so rather than actually having its own disclosure for everything to do with the outer adapter it relies on the one six four which is the same specification as the now one of the things that the district court was you know aired in if you look at his and if you look at his analysis he failed to even take into consideration whatsoever the words of the claims the only claims that he equivalence that it was that there was a dispute on whether or not they've the accused product function in the same way he actually agreed with arlington that it they did achieve the same result and that they had the same function and the only dispute was on the way prong which we believe we had submitted significant amount of evidence that there was a disputed fact but because of this case has a claim construction issue that applies also to the judge connor case we think it's very important that we that this court looks to the claim construction and does not resolve this issue solely on summary judgment while we believe that your court this court could easily throw this out on a factual issue we want the court to really look and compare the two claim constructions issued by judge connor and judge computer zero because we would submit that judge connors is much more clearly reasoned in following these courts directives in their claim construction methodology cases now with respect the specifications section really don't believe there is really any dispute the judge computer oh was importing a limitation he himself acknowledged that the claims did not include the split limitation and he pointed out there was only one sentence in the specification that he found intriguing he actually even rejected bridgeport's arguments based on the figures themselves and said that philips and other cases in this court's methodology had told that he should not limit the claim construction to the preferred embodiment of the figures but instead he ended up doing exactly that because he he got focused on one and only one sentence in the specification that talked about springing inward in springing outward and then he said without the split there would be no springing inward and springing outward and we would submit that again that is the district court limiting himself to one embodiment in one description and by no means does it rise to the standard of defining a term implication as this court has held that would have to be a situation where there was a repeated and consistent and exclusive usage of a term in contrast a very sentence that he relies upon the claim language that the court's interpreting is spring metal adapter yeah but where is there anything in this claim that says it's less than a full circle or that it's a split circle somehow so matter fact it says it's circular which i would presume means it's a circle not something that's less than a circle will we have a debate about the meaning of circular iran or as well well but that circular has a pretty clear meaning and i don't see anything in the claim that supports your reading in the courts make clear that the claims are interpreted in light of the teachings in the special but we don't import limitations out of the specification we have to have something in the claim that indicates the way it should be interpreted and then we'll go to the specification but if there's nothing in the claim we're not going to import a limitation with the words spring metal adapter in this context the words arranged ma spring steel that we see seventy two instances in the specification where it talks about spring metal adapters but of course just that's all we have your we don't have something less than a circle here doing the words spring is interpreted is used in the language of the claims your honor to mean to encompass opening and opening up the difficult thing with that is why wouldn't the claim language be redundant if we were to construe it the way you're suggesting the limitations said circular spring metal adapter being less of a complete circle if the words spring itself meant split than the less than the complete circle language is totally  limitation obviously has more to it than just the lesson equates circle your honor and i think if you if you're looking at the claims broader the context of the claims in claim seven which only says the circular spring metal adapter it's clear from claim seven and the and in their inventor it myth it that operate if it were completely split wouldn't that be an issue with politically but not one of claim construction well this court cases teach that you interpret the clean language so that it would be enabled and when you look at it in light of the teachings  specification all of the embodiment in the specification show that it's with none of the embodiment of either patten show less than a complete split and i disagree with my colleague there are places elsewhere besides the seven lines to which she refers t indicate that it is less than complete circle i just make sure i understand your argument the words spring metal adapter you believe those words standing on their own that the use of the word spring is what a synonym for split in the context of the i think it's those words that the court is trying to interpret in light of the the teachings of the specification the prosecution history and extrinsic but time and again it says in the specification let's just take column three lines seven through ten very close to where you're referring to talks about the spring steel adapter meaning the adapter is made of spring steel well they talk about the thickness of that steel and they say it's formed from spring steel and there isn't any imbued ambiguity on that at all well there's there is even your interpretation we've got the ambiguity of claim differentiation prosecution history there's no ambiguity on this deal is spring steel even if one thinks about it as what is the teach what the adapter that is the invention here and that what you're trying to understand is what the adapter is the teaching the specification show that the adapter arlington invented is completely split sure to be sure in the description of the first embodiment but the different embodiments are all about different numbers and locations of the tanks and i commit you're on the reason it can put it there after said spring steel adapter twenty is that it's referring back to that definition of spring steel adaptor which is split and there are other places there at least when it popped up that is just ahead of that which i was telling you about the spring steel adapter twenty is typically point two four inches thick can form from spring steel such as s a t ten ninety five tempered spring steel or its equivalent boy that is as unambiguous as you can get we're talking about spring steel and then i go back to the claim and imo that's the word they use spring steel there's no ambiguity here but the claims don't teach an adapter that's anything less than a complete split to live in it's one of the words you're saying that it doesn't say a complete split without a complete split total circle i may have got my negatives crossed jerry does a circular too so we've got circular  well the circular limitation has to do with the shape of the adapter itself the economics can be less than circular will spring steel metal adapter where the specification talks about how it is formed it talks about forming up out of a flat piece of metal being formed into a circle and nowhere does it teach how one will join that flat piece of metal into a complete undivided circle i guess one of the things i'm not understanding is are you saying the words ring metal adapter that the use of that word brain is entirely to emphasize the limitation discussed in the spec of a split it could be but even if you don't agree with that i think even when we're just trying to interpret what the adapter wait a minute but if we interpret it as meaning a split metal adapter then haven't we now said it doesn't have to be made of spring steel and i would assume that reading the specification it would be crystal clear that it ha s to be formed of springs deal with it there are other places in the claims that make clear it's are made of a resilient metal and the parties don't dispute that it's made out of some form of resilient metal the question is have they taught how to make it out of an we interpret a claim to uphold its validity is sort of when all other things are equal but all things don't appear to be equal in this case every time the adapter is mentioned in the specification it is shown in all of the figures as less than a complete circle if we agreed with spring steel adapter twenty eight includes a slot and all three embodiments have been pictured pictured in the figures in the eight three one certainly show a complete split in the adapter and again the specification different from this which is clearly less than a complete circle which is what they are arguing for in zero zero five but you don't have any diagrams or description in the a three one patent for really less than a complete circle even if there's a list there basically in contact it shows us a slot that goes straight through judge laurie so it does show it in its relaxed state so conceivably they're touching but again it doesn't show a complete undivided piece of metal which is what the accused products are made of and there's there's the prosecution history to suggest that they argued and disclaimed a complete undivided to they distinguish their invention from wrecker saying the advantage of their invention is that it springs apart at the periphery of the tune and when they made that argument didn't they then add a limitation not a complete circle that's the point in which they added that limitation correct so why isn't that the limitation that is responsive along with those remarks and where that limitation wasn't added those remarks don't apply for example claim two was never rejected claim two which is now playmate before us was never rejected so why should we construe those remarks as applying to it because the remarks went to broad claims one in thirteen not amended claims  thirteen and the test is whether regional competitor could read those remarks as giving up the undivided serve why would they give it up the examiner allowed claim to as long as it was rewritten in independent form so why would any reasonable prosecutor examiner say well hey let's add another limitation even though it's been allowed in a broader capacity that's not reasonable is it i mean you tell me is a reasonable it's reasonable to read what they said which is our invention allows our spring metal adapter to spring apart at the periphery so it will work with a number of adapters that was their invention nothing in the figures of the zero five zero patent which has claimed eight shows otherwise claim seven which doesn't have any language that would in clude a complete list the inventor admits won't operate won't slip over the shoulder unless it is a skin sleeps with the specifications also say only a slight force is required to slip it over the shoulder of the connector and the it's the testimony's clear that takes seventy five pounds of force to slip it over the shoulder of the connector how do you  description talks about preferred in the fourth talks about being more preferred but all of the embodiments are simply different ways to attach the tangs and they the second embodiment distinguish itself from the first embodiment on the grounds that instead of having six things it has thirteen tang's and work with a stick or electrical junction box but all of the figures show that there is a complete wit and again the two places where it talks about a figure tendency or fourteen show the flat piece of metal from which the adapter is going to be formed in a specification talk about the adapter being formed from a flat piece of metal and nowhere does the specification talk about welding that piece together or in some way turning it into something that's less than a complete circle so let me go back i've asked this a couple of times but i'm not sure i really understand your answer and i really want to work construing claiming we look at claim language and we interpret it so is your position that every embodiment in this pattern shows a split therefore judges read that split into the claimed i don't care where you put it but shove it in there somewhere or is your interpretation that the word spring means split she can't have one way or the other right you can't you're either going to tell what the words are there but you should read them in like simon and other kit kinds of cases or you're going to take the word through there and these are the words that you should use to interpret this i think what exactly whether you look at it as assignment case or whether you look at the your interpreter spring steel metal dafter either way you come to the same result this court case is to be sure to say that you don't read limitations from the specification into the claim but they also there's a long line of cases that say that when the claim is when this that the specification informs the meaning of the claim and when this desiccation only shows one way to do something you can read you read the claim language even if it were broad enough standing alone to encompass more as limited by the teachings in the specification i mean that's the principal teaching of  there are a number of this court cases that interpret claims where the language would be broad enough to encompass more but there's nothing shown in the specification adapters and i'm trying to understand exactly what your argument is i understand you're willing to embrace either way that i'm willing to hold your direction but which word is the word adaptors the word spring that the combined spring metal adapter that those three words taken together with each one of ordinary skill in the art to have split the three words spring steel adapter must be meaning but isn't that defined in the claims very specifically as spring steel of a certain sickness in a certain reading i mean we have a definition in the claim still in the specification don't wait what you're greater i think just simply describe what the springs feel adapter will be made from the spring steel adapter will be formed from spring steel so if it already meant that it would need to say that and then later i'm going to says it's spring metal adapter in the claims and now it's telling you what the metal is it's spring steel so the broader claim is very clearly defined by the specifications with respect your honor in columns three lines twenty seven it says the spring steel adapter is the spring steel adapter is typically for from spring steel yes i think if you're looking for a definition of circular a metal spring adapter is law it's later in that same column where it says the circular metal spring adapter has an opening that results from not forming a complete circle that is the definition of spring steel a metal spring adapter in the remaining thank you yars i would like to start with judge moore's questions to bridgeport i think it's it's quite clear bridgeport did take kind of two inconsistent positions here first they argued that spring metal adapter they changed their argument in this case and sort of went to the spring which we would submit it was waived because it's different than the arguments that they made below but number two they argue that they also defined by implication in either case they do not meet their standard because clearly the claim language as noted the plain ordinary meaning and that bridgeport did not dispute is an adapter made of spring metal and they do not rise to the standard of a disclaimer in the specification nor did they rise to a disclaimer in the prosecution history and in fact this court held in fuji asking the question whether or not anything in the specifications or the figure suggest that the spring metal adapter could be split has it actually backwards the question is whether or not the specification makes clear that the spring metal dafter can be anything but split that we disclaimed in some way all unsplit rings which clearly we did not the other point that i wanted to point out is in your questions also to her with respect to the prosecution history she actually made a point of saying that the remarks went not to the amended claims but to the un amended claims and that is just factually incorrect the amendments were made before the response to the office action and their response to the office action then very clearly started off with the language both claims one and thirteen have been amended to distinguish over wrecker the a split limitation and now that entire remarks was limited to the the combination of the spring steel adaptor as less than a complete circle because it's clear that the district court here erred in its cl construction in importing a limitation from the specification into the claims and narrowly construing the claims other than its plain in ordinary meaning of an adapter made of spring metal we would ask this court to reverse and construe the claims as an adapter made of spring model and set aside the findings of non infringement non willfulness and no damages if the court has no further questions i will try to thank you