independent claims should be construed as open and view of the fact that the claims that depend their friend contain qualifying language to open up their markets group to the use of the lens to the user presence outside of this classes of residence and to the  substances that might be used to make the layers so what is your position as to that the layers can be made out of anything i don't believe the layers can be made out of anything that we know based on the claims that the layers can be made out of lo used regardless of whether it's one of the four in the market for group and i don't think that you know i don't know the answer that question to be honest with you i think that for the purposes of this appeal and for and i'm happy to understand the blinds are right i'm having difficulty seeing where the stopping point is if anything can be the root of the layers can be made out of anything that is appropriate position that you have about adding allowing at least the addition material specified in other claims and so i was thinking along the following lines mark roots are not all of a unit of the same thing it's a label as if you just just rich said that applies as to a number of different things we don't have a more crucial group that starts with that is only a group limited two we also don't even have one that uses a open ended variable or the name of a thing inside we have something that a layer which is not the name of the thing in them in the list but something that those are materials used to create but in particular we have a consisting of wary of even within one the last clause where and then all the defendant claims we have consisting of where in and maybe that opens up  language so that one doesn't have to say well consisting of either means closed or open full stop everything is in or nothing is in it's more limited than correct it's plausible it absolutely is more limited  that and there are you know there are specific limitations even with them claim line that the residents must fall into those categories and so we're only talking about limited is the question i think it's i think it's pretty limited i think we're talking about those those classes of that for a number of the accused products and i'm going to try to avoid the material that i think is still marked confidential but i don't remember there is one component that you have to do for at least some of the products prevail on what is a factual issue about what it's makeup is and whether it fits within i guess it's the district court's claim construction of linear lo subject films would in french and some of the subject for films but not in french under that construction assuming that the recipes that we received from various council that were crafted solely for purposes of this litigation composition of those subject films but if we assume for a minute that that everything that we received is correct then there's a divide as to which films would in france render that constrained by construction but certainly there would be film  and at this point i'd like to reserve that the remainder of our argument for the fourth ok thank you some more with the kind of well of course whatever we construe claims we don't reach back to the limitations the claims don't say i claim what is you know and is in essence an omnibus claim i claim claim and i use classic simple for some suggesting that there are non classic non simple ones and of which i suspect this is one is you know an inhibitor consisting of water or for other things and bonilla i would not thinking of those words all by itself think that a bowl that is a mere politan ball that's what it's called remember would be excluded why why wouldn't why wouldn't it sam's or something right that's the first we're in clause and then and there is a series of dependent claims which and where and where and where and where in and it's the language taken as a whole that we need to popular things in the dependent claims those other things make you know cause a you know when twelve the problem why isn't it better to say what you have in claim one is a non variable not generic term but something a layer that is made up of the things listed so it's not even a classic markku say leave consisting of and then an additional phrase where in which tells you something about what can be in there or doesn't have to be right and the where in falls with the different compositional properties can be for example one of the inner layers are selected from metallic seem l d p the next adjacent could be a nonmetallic seen so they have different composition what that phrase does not go back and overturn the well sort of principle that the and i would argue that this is a classic textbook mark louche limitation but by the come back to the specification and claim twenty four clearly there is a common ploy if you hear the have construed the claims to preserve the liberty you'll recall that judge young said the second part of this is that if we adopted multi layers strained argument what happens is there's a i think it is it the presumption becomes a rule as the advocate says unless there is qualifying language in that claim which is does not exist here there is no wanted wanted to have a go on to discuss the prosecution history of that couldn't i'm sure the other side would be jumping up and down and that's the same sort of principle here after the claims have been drafted and they have chosen some specific language does that come back to the well settled i don't think there's a dispute of the case law west well settled they chose language it doesn't matter that they could have chosen some other language just ask you about the case law because and i think maybe i'm though i said it several times haven't said it with  layer are there any precedence that you know of where the word that introduces the list of things and what we call them are crucial group is something other stand in for those things i can't recall anything that would fit that i couldn't find one there and i don't recall i can't say it doesn't exist i think in this case and that the reference to the layer selected from when we're talking about a multi layer polymer film and we say a layer selected from residents old of course each layer in this respect d meaning of a certain set of words this uses that set of words so never mind anything else about context those words must have that meaning you're closed markku meaning the premise of all of that is that there is a winding only clear body of law that says this set of words has that meaning and i guess i'm a little bit uncertain whether that's true  just real quick with that because i would like to get to them my appellate issue for me if i may real quick but i think here is what we have to look at is again it's a series of looking at claim construction which goes back to the wall sort of principle there is no qualifying language and we can't go back to the specification or later claims it must for the women to undo that presumption well settled understanding because of the noise provision one of mourners going arctics up that  first thing comes to mind is closed there's there's no qualifying language if we go to that rationale then it becomes on reason last what is the scope as some of the questions were worse the limit what resonance could be identifying if i may turn real quick with the rule leavened it all comes back to the same thing the plaintiff never had a reasonable basis under the complaint construction they had previously taken the clothes off approached so your  position is that not only are you right about the claim construction or you've been making in the last thirteen minutes but you're so right it was sanctionable for them to argue the country i think that that plus the lack of a preset investigation so they have to come up with a reasonable construction and i actually was a curious about this is there a way that somebody some sophisticated person handed your material can figure out what it or composition is i think so you believe we've said is there i didn't remember your saying that in your brief and i guess i'm also i think i'm remembering that they said they supplied or offered to supply to the proffer of previously with help privileged documents and an argument that it would support that there was a reasonable person investigation when even after barry had originally filed a motion for summary judgment because the films do not infringe the the plaintiff admitted that they lacked evidence to show that all the limitations are present that that's after filing the complaint after a motion for summary judgment even if they win there should be rule living based on the proper analysis there should to provide competitors who come across a happening even before it's used against them so that they can figure out what the patent cover or in the specification about about blends or resin additives or additional or as and then it is limited to those resins you would agree your version of the answer close group is it's got to be one of the all we look at that in general the fundamental tenets of claim construction which are you look at the dependent claims and we have dependent claims that we look at this in the specified the rest of the specification we look at the written description and it all leads to the unmistak along and there is not a single case out there that says that a market cannot be opened by a deep and claim this issue just hasn't presented itself and i would argue that the baxter case doesn't say that whether the market can be red separately and in itself is judged i just suggested as a possibility or whether it has to be construed with meaning the written