functional in treating certain means plus functional intuitions in the claims for example regarding the claim one limitation five including nine limitations six those are the limitations directed toward automatic movement of the ten to explaining that a block diagram of a circuit served merely as an overview for introducing and explaining details of the sort of fit that were shown in a more detail figure that corresponded structure included and both performing the claim function just a texas digital system of the black diagram figure one is just an overview and the corresponding structure is shown in figure two we are doing and also in the group field in the written description simply a general purpose computer but it's the computer program to perform the algorithm that's disclosed in the specific case we submit just as the circuit components of that circuit dictate the way in which it operates so does in future sense the algorithm control the way in which the special purpose computer works now that one and only circuits disclosed in the specification is only disclosed in connection with the hydraulic trim tab system can judge of course this goes towards your questions for limitations for i'm twenty nine i'll leave it primarily for evening there but i just want to know in passing that the hydraulic system that shown in seventy eight seventy patented the only one that is linked to the actuators non self aren't new but there's testimony in the record that showed from methadone witnesses that showed that no one had ever seen those types of actuators in connection with a trim ta years and we would argue that there's no enabling there's no linking as to how it works moving on to the infringement issue there were two little systems at issue one was an original system that would perform  the automatic retraction when powers were removed from it weren't wired and there was a revised system that was introduced more than two years after this suit was five and in that system there was a wire that could receive eight and engine r p m signal well we were going to that and the district court said it was an indirect connection yes but i want to make the point that that was an intentional design to further differentiators are to believe that we that there was no infringement in the first place but during prosecution history based on those amendments and arguments that bennett made were arguing that there are clues from asserting that the seventy eight patent claims then encompassed a systems that have automatic control based construction no infringement but yet still a breach of the settlement agreement in other words say one word concluded yes you have to look to figure two of the patent for the structure and for that reason there's no guarantee down the road however one then looks to what you've done hitching up to the commoner and that's not a been allowed hookup as he will under the settlement agreement so what what's the situation if you find those frenchmen but arguably breach  that does not infringe ok because of whatever reason claim construction set of but you are strictly speaking wiring in a way other than  existing and i don't think that there's anything in the settlement agreement that prohibits l'engle from coming out with a new system that's an alternative it can't be restricted to build only the devices that they were present building at t the important point that i would really like to make is that the district court based its rulings of a breach means of the breaching of the summit agreement completely an action taken by michael that took place after the suit was filed in march  thousand and four paragraph thirteen of the settlement agreement at eight hundred fifty two provides that then it would not file suit against michael as long as michael was in compliance with the agreed and the district what's allowed in appendix b where would that leave us to make it but on its face paragraph simply says you will not wire in any way other than is shown in appendix b and what if it's wired in a way that doesn't infringe with the point being is that if you're hooked up to the to comet or you're indirectly hooked up to an engine switch since but see your office up for that kind of infringement because of claims instruction in the whole issue of you know the figure two point about the claims it's not so so is it ok no infringement because they don't have a business structure yet you're not in compliance with appendix this case really presents a great opportunity for this panel the cost of the fact that what it does is it really fills in area of which there is a dearth of case law that that really goes back almost twenty details or the language in the settlement agreement in the case if you study but i guess i'm a little leery of having the settlement agreement in that regard great question because i will paragraph thirteen will first of all when under state law as cited in our brief when one party reaches an agreement that relieves the other party the non breaching party of all other obligations under the contract and so  was the first one to breach the contract by the mind waiting as found by the lower court as a matter of fact the blanco reaches a contract and so they are after as determined by the court and as proper under florida law reading the settlement agreement is contemplating if there is noncompliance by either side am i wrong about that lose your honor indicating that that is the only remedy that bennett has visited to bring a that it's a restriction or a covenant exactly that to me is not the way that paragraph is written it's not the way it was determined by the lower court and in fact as a result of the breach filing oath that's exactly where brant bennett ultimately did it which is  no infringement there is no breach of contract but the minute that they violated there were any point in to because look at paragraph twelve yes we agree to pay the agreement to pay the seventy dollars is right even paragraph twelve and above those obligations set forth in paragraph twelve and so to go ahead and benefit lingo for breaching its contract would just turn the law on its head both stable and pass a law because there was a proper determination of pan  here and in fact while both of you raised the question i believe george approached about the issue of claim construction here is very clear under the act now case and he personalized media case that in fact it's not just a black box control circuit forty two as indicated by i didn't count rather it is a control circuit as set forth in column one lines fifty five to fifty nine of the upon a removal of power from the engine so it was so if a person of ordinary skill in the art knows exactly what that that wording means and in fact that is sufficient and in fact in the in the p p l guidelines the  guidelines make it clear that it is fact if in fact a person of ordinary skill in the art and this is not in my brief but under the will of the federal register guidelines i am seventy six number twenty seven february ninth two thousand and eleven a section roman numeral to see with regard to interpretating and claim limitations under one twelve paragraph six subsection t it talks about rejections under section one twelve two when examining means plus functional limitations under section one twelve paragraph six and there are it is stated that the disclosure must be reviewed from the point of view of a one year old in the relevant are to determine whether that person would understand the written description to disclose the corresponding structure materials or act and in this situation their own acts for  alexander testified yet a person of ordinary skill in the art knows that it's a timing circuit that the time insert it can be the exact type of event indians were it could be the pulse generated system that langkow used which was in type of of control circuitry that is referred to when you talk about a control circuit they can raise or lower trim tabs upon a removal of power from the engine so it was very clear this was not just something that  was just a matter of a lot of this was a matter of fact it was determined by the fact that there are three experts that testified at the lower court level so for them to come in now and say well you know nobody really knows what's in that black revenues are not limited by paragraph thirteen is that what you're saying that's exactly right your honor and in fact it's not because we're seeking to deviate from a contract we're not we're not looking to be absolved from the terms of the contract what it says is the flipside which is well so long as you do what you're obligated to do you want to me for patent infringement which is the law of license that's all it is fees which were assessed which after nine years to let this individual off of his actions and the company's actions the court found was just not applicable not appropriate and made a determination that there the two thousand and six indemnification agreements after the two thousand and four suit was filed this report in conversations with customers also after those too court also noted that lego did what it was obligated to do under the settlement agreement out with a redesign systems so we submit that lego was released from its obligations under the settlement and so that's your response so if there is no infringement why there's no alternative about in the first instance just briefly to the arguments that were presented that it can be any kind of circuit and there's all these other types of circuits that work the testimony was that people skilled in the air might be able