has wrestled the times but developed a fairly substantial body of law in the nine years that it has been applying the phillips case and what is emerge from that is a fairly clear rule and that is that you apply the common first of all about the clean language two things that struck me about it i'd like you to talk to me about whether they have any significance one is doesn't the freeze support structure it self leave just a little bit of residual uncertainty about when the support has to occur during the movement or only when the thing is stopped and second  use two different terms support service and allege why would they choose to do that if what i take it is your view it doesn't matter for claim one that th and that's all that was done here and i can point to those statements of the moment but getting to your point on the ledge and support surface support surface standing alone doesn't require a lot of structure yes that's absolutely true but what it does require aside i do want to ask you about the prosecution history as as well just on the language which is where we traditionally start why isn't there enough uncertainty aist on about when th point has to occur during motion or only in the closed position to force us to look at other things like the specification to tell us what were the inventors really up to if all the claims said was support surface i might agree with that but that's not all the claim says it's specifically tells you when the support service must be engaged in the last clause the where and clause of claim one it says it has a from the slide of the movable member of the slide has a first portion of the second portion and what it's going to give you is an additional limitation that the first force is engaged with the support surface in the closed position that is the only limitation in this claim on when the support surface has to be in contact with the slot it doesn't have any of the requirements of the district court added that it has to define the flight engagement track there are other elements that are part of that and it also doesn't have any other limitation it has to be in contact when it's open and chose a different term to talk about that second part the ledge again it it also is required to you agree that the court surface and last mean different i agree that the support surface and ledge are different structures and you look at over washington the support services still being the same he's in the lead still be the same well your honor it can and it can also be inverted there's no limitation that requires the support service to be on a particular side of the arch where slot or the ledge on a particular side of the arch wire slot in the broadest claim there are other claims there are other environments in which that is the case where there are for the limitations but those are not included in this broad exclaimed the error that we contend t that these are lost or have only those those statements are in here as well but there are specific broadening statements a column for starting at line thirty five to about one in fifty three that talk about changing the orientation flipping it as  that's not quite true at column five and this is language we've both cited to you in our briefs the last sentence beginning around line sixty that the player support services including the groups and got collectively defined as a slight engagement track and if you continue on to the next column column six there is a discussion about an alternative in which the slide can engage as a those groups isn't the slightest engaging the grooves it can but need not has a close it doesn't wobble around and that close it again they emphasize a column seven at line fourteen and fifteen that the slide can be held by the groups one of ordinary skill would understand if it's a close fit and the slides being held by the grooves it could be in contact with the slide the support surface yes but it need not be an answer to what does the record particularly the specification indicate about what purpose the support surface and the cute angle made between the support surface and the base this what is the function of that apart from the function it plainly cervus when the slide is coming up which is keeping the slide out of the way of the gun if the bracket is oriented so that it loads from the gun side it keeps it away effective floating from the other side it's not a opening side will call the opening side of the closing side if you put it if you load it in straight and it's all in one plane when the slide comes in and there's no tension on the slide there's no pressure on it to stay engaged by having a different angle on the opposite sides of the arch wire slot when that slide is engaged i'm now putting force on the slide in different directions on the two ends and that alone helps the slide stay engaged in the grooves and in the slide engageme you just said is that reflected in the specification here i think it's reflected in the specification through the drawings there is not an explicit statement of what i just said it in the title spec discussion of the forces discussion of the forces i think it's implicit in the drawings and what one of o i to make of that you're out of the the not all of the file wrapper was put in the record below by either party so yes i think it does strongly support this examiner wanted us to limit it more we said no and he allowed the claims anyway without the express limitation they're trying to add yes i agree but your honor my biggest concern is that what i understand that we have to have broadening disclosure at a base i mean if we don't have a disclosure that supports a broader scope of the claim you could look at that and simply say well he was wrong i do believe firmly supports us but i also believe there is broadening disclosure in this special occasion that doesn't give a clear intent to limit the claims it doesn't do any of the things that this court has held in the hundreds of philips cases it's come down with in the meantime there is a statement that this is critical that it's important that it's the only way that it works there's no statement in here that criticizes the alternative that we're asserting its coverage that gives it away there's nothing in the prosecution history that goes in the opposite direction of what you just read we think everything in the prosecution is free so supports what we're saying about this so what you've got is a situation where if we are firm on this case we are back sliding into territory where it doesn't have to be clear expressed intent it doesn't have to be clear and unmistakable anymore it can be equivocal it can be ambiguous to can be contradicted by explicit statements in the specification and the explicit statements in the prosecution history prevail all of that is premise where you started which is the view that the claim language ordinarily understood is really quite clear that it doesn't matter whether the slide is in any way touching or  touching the support service during the move in the open position and if that is my thing even a little bit unclear and suddenly the specific what the specification shows the inventors contemplating comes pouring in to really answer that answer and even if we accept that and we now need we're not going to go into common ordinary meaning we now need to look at the specification appoint the court to come six lines twenty seven engage the slide groups forty eight and fifty of bracket body when my getting slide is engaged with bracket body now if that statement had said engage the support surface when it would be sure i'd have more of a problem but this is pointing in the other direction i've got this read something tell us whether the word means something other than support or touch i think it's just used in the pattern throughout it's just touching that there's contact between those parts it doesn't mean some kind of liking no i don't think it was there is other disclosure in here talking about the locking in the retaining those two separate functions so i think the patterns he was using those terms when it meant that i think what it means by engaging is just in context so what we have here is a teaching that the contact can be with the groups we go to the top of seven there's a long discussion of this close fit because i don't want this thing while going around i don't want to sliding out accidentally so i maintaining the clothes fit and again at lines fourteen and fifteen of column seven the applicant and ample emphasizes that the first course in engages the slide groups of the sliding gauge will track again is not saying it stays in place because it's in contact with the support surface is saying it stays in place in these embodiments because it's in contact with the groups it could also be in contact with the support service we're not limiting that but it's not necessary and therefore that limitation was not clearly indicated by this record quite the contrary the record points the that here column five lined sixty one says the planar support surface forty six including groups forty eight fifty and guide fifty two fifty four collectively defined a sliding gauge and track for supporting and guiding light getting slide within the bracket and i think what they have done is they've read out the word collectively and i think collectively an important point here the the sliding gauge mut track is not simply the grooves and slides as they have argued it's the groove slides and the pla they all have the planar support they have both the planar support surface and the base surface and there is consistent throughout the specification in fact the specifications makes  reference several times like reference numerals referred to like features well again the plane or support surface reference number forty six and the base surface reference number forty serve if the slide important translating that is moving along with the support service to stay out of the ground mr coin referred to a function having to do with the relevant direction of gingerly the slide does not interfere with the guns and second and then they talk about you don't want inadvertent opening but the argument that they made and i was surprised to see it for the first time in their reply brief about forces and stresses because the pattern never mentions stresses and if you read the section there's some reference i'm not aware of as a reference in the specification but that could just be me i  think i'm remembering references in the prosecution history the portion that's actually in the joint appendix which i thought see the salmon are also mentally concluding that scene and wasn't a problem talked about different talking being subjected to i can only just give give the context is that the reason i guess i'm focusing on that is that it seems to me if keeping the slide away from the guy was the only function served by having this acute angle which is obviously absolutely central to what's going on here then that would tend to suggest the claim refers only to the situation where the slide is coming up on the support service around the angle it's completely irrelevant that the slightest coming coming down along the ledge but if there's an additional functions served by that angle then it might make sense to have an independent claim that doesn't serve the stay away from the gun function and so i'm trying to understand is there an additional function  i would have to can you read that back to me and i didn't during a recent conversation the examiner had explained that the claims remain too broad to be overcome various prior references indicated in the claims would most likely be allowable in the prior art if limitations were included in the claims of stated that the like getting them or you agree contact with the support surface during the entire movement to the liking member from the open position to the closed position the attorney informed the examiner that the applicants did not wish to amend the claims in the manner proposed by examiner and that the office action should be mailed in response to the most recently filed claims and then they amended some things but not that they did some stuff about ledge but not this so here as i take this i'm seeing i'm having a hard time understanding this to to say anything other than the examiner thought that they should and the limitations to do exactly what you proposed and the african said no thank you and didn't do it and then it was the claims  lack i think that my response there is that one the examiner its patent office is looking at the claims he is he is giving those claims the broadest possible view and so he broadly interpret inc those claims not necessarily interpret in the claims in light of the specification as the court would do and so if you look at the specification then i think that's the the response is that the specification more narrowly the finds the claim then does the examiner during the prosecution and in fact if you look at the specifications and this is all in our brief but the specification as defined the translation plane as the plane along which the lie getting flight moves between the open and closed position and if defined by the sliding agent track as i stated earlier the slid trying to read the the collective lead out of it and i think that's what the examiner does as well now  they've i think i'd like to back up now and look at how you interpret a claim terms and as i understand their argument it's much like the argument that's been rejected several times by the court and that is the plain ordinary meaning of support and surface if you take those together then any surface that supports is a support surface i think you have to look at support surface in the context of the patent and it has to be looked at by one of ordinary skill in the art and there's simply no evidence in the record that one of ordinary skill in the art would think that support surface would be given the broad interpretation in fact this is supported i think fight several of the cases that we've cited can you address claims six and sixteen which at least as i read them and tell me if i'm wrong even about this makes perfectly clear that they are adding a limitation that the support services is in fact to be used for translation by translation right and that's them the the movement of the slide why do they did does that addition six six one and sixteen for can not communicate pretty clearly that the independent claim is broader well in plain fears and this is obviously that plain differentiation argument claim differentiation is not a hard and fast rule no no and and in this case if you look at claims six if you look at clint six it adds two to limitations the point the plan differentiation is to avoid having a redundant claim and here it's not redundant because claim six actually the entire specification in fact there's no place in the specification that broadly defines the term support services and so claims six and again off come back to my argument in cl six there are two limitations that are added and if the point is to avoid redundant claims then the fact that claims six added to limitations rather than a single limitation should get this passed that issue that all of the evidence that was necessary to determine the prosecution history issues here in interpreting the claims is in the rectory and in fact some of it was cited by armco in the opening brief they cited page a six fifty one which actually they quoted which is part of the amendments after final rejection so that evidence is all in the  we haven't talked about the word lad i think the word legit is a fairly easy flame term because once you've said what the support services  necessarily follows from that it's on the opposite side of the slide so in essence the term ledger will be determined by the meaning of support service i did want to talk a little bit about the application of court has there is no intrenchments don't need to talk about ledge there's no issue about how it applies it's a pure claim construction issue why we can't say it was that there is a preliminary injunction motion that was denied by the court based on the claim construction maybe i'm just confused about why what's in the huge profits matters here i was just trying to show the breadth of their point construction and how it doesn't use then you read collectively out one last point that i'd like to address and that is the the market really if you read through the mark when ruling that issues not presented in conclusion world class technologies respectfully request that the court affirm thank you thank you very briefly first off the collectively defined means what it says it's not us is trying to reach out collectively they're trying to equate the single support service which is one of those collective elements with the whole thing we agree it is collective and the guys in groups are part of it secondly i'd like to direct the court to column ten lines thirty seven i proposed one of the cheeses questions in order to judge from his questions in light of what i find said line thirty seven it says the ledge opposing the support surface across the arch wire slot so really what it's really simply doing is defining that one piece is on one side of the other pieces on the other side it's not telling us when playing one which side it has to be your honor if we had ability to rewrite the play right now i would completely agree with you but i don't so that's the terms of they did you i understand that but that's what cut me a little bit of problems here and i don't i mean i have a very hard time understanding how in the context of this invention some work surface labs have plain and so that i look to how they are defined and when you use two different terms it doesn't seem like they should be used interchangeably they should be used to describe the same same structure and at least it seems to me what she struck looking at the accused devices you're flipping the way you're using those terms but maybe i can get the context to answer your question if you look at page ten of our brief we reproduced figure four out of the human reference that was cited which is the basis for this exchange of the prosecution history what we were trying to distinguish was this bracket and we did that by adding a ledge simply hits this surface thirty seven stops so what we've added is the limitations of these acute angles and that the ledge is on the opposite side from the support surface and that was sufficient to distinguish no