invention is described as a heat sink is configured with a split the transverse flow configuration it is described as the a since you will feature of the pact all the other bells and whistles that may be added to this heat sink are fine but the essential feature is a split the transverse flow configuration in contrast to the numerous numerous descriptions of the patent to be eventually dr repels cal tech to venture not spin one word throughout the patent describing the relative merits of a non integral barangaroo sniffer a bond or anything about the way these parts of the heat sink need to be have to explain that one to me it's a bond at least from the engineering is very much like what the district court construed to be your then taking bond in terms and the context of chemistry or whatever and you're coming up with something else that for a narrower definition of bonded then what might otherwise pluck our positions of the word bonded by itself if you don't if you can before you look at the rest of the specification of the context the starting point got to be the ordinary meaning of the term itself bonded it is a neutral term just because of the fact that we talk about integral and not integral bonds the idea that there are bonded by itself without looking anything else would arbitrarily exclude some type of monster but include other types of lines it's arbitrary it's certainly possible that the rest of the specification may call for a specific more specific definition of bonded but if the starting point is that ordinary meaning of the term itself bonded should be neutral it contact with should be neutral because you could molecular contact is contact just as much is in fact the more intimate in contact using an intermedia a cup or phosphorus out the the the structure that was created for that dip reasoning process the only bond between them are metallurgical molecular blocks it's copper  engineering context even though they define bonding as fastening together two components money he said if they were looking at the word something that is mondo and they wouldn't apply the same fastening something that has been all claim three talked about intimate contact with one did is a passive structural term which which describes the physical relationship between the heat sink structure and the all that we should be concerned about is the physical structure that is yielded as a result of the physical structure of the prof it does not matter how that structure may have been created so for instance in this case if you have a they are trying to incorporate those discussions of manufacture and manufacturing usually with the one nine hundred eighty s to try to limit the scope of an apparatus patent which is under under then going products just simply the wrong way to approach this from talking about the relationship between the finished ruptures and the heating base it also talks about the relationship between the heat sink base and the electrical component that is being cooled and the conclusion i draw from that this is on page nineteen of their brief footnote for the conclusion they draw from that is if the electrical component is if the first surface of that of the back of the basis for receiving electrical components well then clearly the electrical component cannot be inte bonded to the heat sink so therefore internal evidence shows that integral bonds are excluded the problem with that the problem with their argument is if you look at claim seven of the pack claims seven express this that we want to we want to make a claim for electrical components that are integral parts of the heat sink the inventor you can say exactly is electric car for here component that's actually one of the important advantages of his design is that he saw that potential and when he's describing it both in the body of the specification and in claims seven he recognizes that there is no inherent structural difference a structural problem between a surface for receiving in an integral connection here we have specific claim language that when you a person born or still here receives the claim language which talks about a top plate having the first surface and a second service for receiving the fin structures and then talking about the fin structures each bonded to said second service that's telling a person born of skill in the art that there is a structural components that are arranged in a certain way in this heat sink assembly and a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the not really shown in the figures in the pan but it talks about the and your honor pointed out planar member is an integral portion of said electrical components not describing the connection between the finished structures in the layer talking about something completely different and in fact what it shows is that when the patent he wanted to use integral he used integral he knew what it meant it means something different than bonded to which is described in the claim to talking to figure six the primary structure which supports the serpentine fins utilizes both a top plate suitable for receiving a component there on and the series of integral vertically extending fin supports and those are different and bonded means two separate things bonded as you want to point out means in this context and this is a mechanical patented it's not a chemical his point is that they can can mean th disagree that it's that or that it's a passive adjective i think mr saul describes as this this is this is a verb wants bonded to the second surface so what's pointed to the second surface the fin structures a body there are two distinct features and they're different structures not you don't find yourself as the district court a magistrate judge pointed out there is you can have contact with in a solid object you don't bond yourself my hand is not bonded necessarily to to second to seventy and it was affirmed by this court two thirty two f third nine zero nine so bonded has no special meaning here it means a union or put heat in between parts to joints securely as that a dictionary definition that we cite from the american heritage dictionary and a joint appendix page fifty two and no need to rely on it if you read claims that that's exactly right that's exactly right so just just to go back to the spec for a minute because we think the claim language in and of itself informs a person's ordinary skill how these how these fin structures are arranged but the specification if there's any doubt confirms those constructions if we start with the object one of the objects of the invention is listed a clay to columns three lines thirty eight to about forty four says an additional object of the present invention to provide an improved high fission to forced air heat sink having a normal split feed transverse flow configuration having optimal selected fin spacing in thickness in a mechanically stable configuration sli a filler material has a lower nothing point than the two metals that you're trying to attach that assembly is then dipped in some sort of flux or molten salt and the  material melts at the end of the process if you there's no melting between the one piece and the second piece it's the filler material that melts and if at the end of the day if you wanted to pull those pieces apart you can melt them again and you have those s that's that's that's exactly right and that's why your honor dipper a z is covered by the claims of the languages that it's that the claims are written from the standpoint of the heat assembly requiring the separate pieces put together and it makes sense because when the patent was written it talks about finances sin sin sickness being one of the primary issues and extruded heat assemblies did not achieve the mechanical stability that these other things in the the not allegedly novel here somewhere here it so we're not this is we're not talking about the manufacturing process of extruded he said we're talking about the actual heat sink as it exists in extruded heat six sitting on the table here would not have the mechanical stability would not have the proper of fin sickness that the inventor had in mind when the pan was written and thus the claims in and of themselves combined with the specifications confirms the district court's construction and upon happy to talk a little bit more about the brain if there a mr johnson commits the same founds is for peace throughout this case he talks about depression being comparable to using a glue because it involves the joining together of two parts joining like bonding is a process it is certainly true that depressing is a as a process involves joining together two parts no one's disputing that but what's relevant for an apparatus patent is look at the structure detailed description of the invention the inventor says that for his particular reduction of his invention in practice he used a thermally conductive bond and a pox the point is that  contemplated here as a viable means of creating a patent structure we also know that receiving does not is not inconsistent with an integral bond all of these things point to the fact that inventor is not at all concerned not at all concerned about the nature of the bomb the nature of the connection has nothing to do with the invention and so unless the expressed terms of the claim language themselves