to minimize the lateral movement of the bracket on the strap included in that error in resolving the disputed issue facts were to claim construction errors concerning the terminating an on i'd like to address the issue that the strap needed to be a unitary structure and the judge so found because he found that there were at least three structures involved with respect to that the judge was actually when we made the argument that address the issue of what would compose the strap and context structure of the and only use of your time and as i looked in your briefs i was understanding you to say that you thought it judge thought that this matter clean construction str regards to being one of that limitations matt that was not addressed in the context of summary judgment we did put forward evidence to appeal papers here there seems to be some disagreement between the two of you i think there's disagreement your honor in the fact that what  was raised in ripon the summary judgment briefing for the first time was a limitation involving whether or not the strap is a perforated and therefore whether or not three pieces combined would be in perforate would we understand the ordinary meaning of an testimony of our expert the fact the support of this court in the case law that that repeatedly has said that more than one structure can satisfy a limitation and just the way that the i mean i bottom of the fuselage and so if the court agrees that these three components to comprise the strap then they are meeting with the bracket well in the meeting issue they're not touching the take it exactly right and the stop pieces block that's a lot of the movement lateral movement of the rubber gasket and therefore your argument is also blocked the movement of the it may not be critical for the outcome but it's it's the devil to me if you look at figure five you have this piece which is thirty with an edge thirty four which so that what you should you shown here is the bracket abutting the stop piece correct but i don't see i can see how this would keep the two from moving in one direction how does it keep the two proving in the other direction that not a concern are you there some feature not shown here that would have that effect i think if you look at figure search your honor which is a cross section what's preventing it from moving is is to say snapping in as well as blocking from the sun because you've got so you've done if the new five is complete and i yes you are i don't think it's limited in the sense that there are different bit what it what it went to was he said look the mature i'm taking i'm saying that the materials you're using are known the art and it was never contested by the applicant that was not so they weren't clear on what the basis of the one twelve rejection all there was no disagreement from that from the applicant he acknowledged their role what he said was even though their old no one thought of using them for my purpose as a replacement an be something that can be made thicker than the original and to do that and still have a fit i have to use this new material so he defines a replacement he didn't say replacement just in the sense of appointment structurally and comparatively to the original by saying it's thicker than the original but still which was i am i am over the art high i am i'm not covered by the arctic because in a replacement though these materials were known they were not known producing a replacement here's what he said  resulting in an improved fatigue all of which would be true if the material was being used to make replacement part as well as if it was being used to make an original work well the material behaves exactly the same if it does you're on a bit but if i he said he says the particular material plane might be well known reading one sixty five and the use of built in residual compressive strength might also been however combining either of these or prove it's going there were placement helicopter  on the shelf in case the parts wear out and the customers need them are you saying that the original equipment parts identical in every respect to the replacement parts that are on the shelf the original would not infringe assuming all of the limitations met but the replacement parts would fit the replacement parts were not because they are not replacements as he defined well i i'm i'm going to say for the purpose of this hypothetical that structurally those replacement parts have all the structural features that he's claimed and so do the original parts if true right now does the original parts of  infringement because they are on the original helicopter and do the replacement parts of a quote by infringement because they are structurally identical to should not because of your honor because to get this claim a remember he asked for calling all those structural lube patients ok and i just want to make sure what your answer your say neither would infringe that's what i'm saying and i'm saying that because of the special definition that this inventor gave the word replacement in order to convince the patent office to give him right but what's in the special definition i tried with my hypothetical to include all the structural features that are part of his definition of replacement in your replacement parts that are sitting on the shelf you state you say you still don't infringe that's correct ok well why because in order to get this problem of well this inventor said look the problem is forming something that's thicker than the original which still fits and to do that therefore therefore my position for my client is as we never do that we have an original  replacement structures only with the original equipment that doesn't quite match what i hear you saying that oh i'm sorry your honor what i've been on the correct myself it is true as judged bryson has pointed out it is true that  although there is no evidence on the record all of the all of the all these helicopters in my client make have exactly the same leader from the original design on if they are ever reconstituted to use a different word those same original parts are put on the helicopter absolutely if we come back to the claimed to get so let's say that we agree that we know exactly what the limitations are about the two right and so i have plan which i set out on purpose to manufacture exactly the cling to and i do now i'm infringing of my making using or selling the claim to venture direct so i'm go maids exactly what is claimed in the past if you've made exactly made it i just may say it's just made it and i'm still proud of it i had a press conference and i said i just made it i just copied the patent there but even reject them but he argued and one of three as i pointed out for one of three he argued that the problem he was solving was to be able to use a tube that was thicker than the original he compared himself structural limitation and we're going to we're going to give it meaning that's what i'm asking this court to do nothing more than that case which is to say when she uses the word replacement and says i'm not talking about the original i'm talking about something the group and different than where several pieces are looked at to see if they can be made as one piece it is true or no because this is a case where completely different  work were then labeled as a strap using the excuse devised attempt we can't do that you can always look at it to devise but you can't use it you devised templates to decide which pieces should be considered a strap but that's exactly what happened that is exactly what's happening what this what what our client does the same thing is done nonsense it's three five nine which was prior art which is to use it rubber and with two metal sonnier soft rubber gasket does not cause the the bracket not to contact stops direct but more important than met the words of the client cells require that the stop is to be used for the movement is to be the bracket on top of the bracket on the strap it's not it's not the movement of the right and he's saying there's case law that says that it's ok to have two pieces of structure meet a unitary structural limitation and he's right about he is right about that here on earth and so he's i wired i entitled to actually inquiries as to whether or not these things that are read norrington showed us whether or not they together comprise a strength because they only the only way that that anyone could specification makes very clear that there's a different twenty gauge month and something that's that's not and age it used to use the word an agent every time it talks about direct contact and in these devices direct contacts and for talking about stress and fatigue direct contact is what the name of the game for all and this device must my clients device which was in the art before hand which was a rock has a rubber gasket because simply not right thank you i don't think director it's clear on that your honor it certainly i think was necessary again by snake if i could certainly i think that's clear i mean the structural limitations that were cited by the examiner had to do with the faster older patients and the cross to having improved replacement parts using it as a replacement in syrian issue with respect to damages in terms of if we were to save this excludes originally equipment but limited it was only recovery would only cover replacement landing gear for existing original landing gear but as i say you can go through this entire specification and there's no one place where it says this invention is intended to replace existing landing gear and only existing land here there's no express disclaimer disavowal as this court says in fact it does say in both the background of the invention and the summary of adventure is that it is intended to the general object of the invention is to provide an improved replacement landing gear to get somebody to substantially increase useful service life for what it is uses the word replacement but it doesn't say to replace that replacement in the in its ordinary meaning judge royce and i  intended to be put on an original helicopter simply because it's to approach the life of the helicopter not to approach a partial life and it also says in the specification that it would be beneficial to serious but a structural limitation but nevertheless the sale of that device for a procedure constituted infringement even if it was used in that in that fashion so it should not be used limitation as we've argued in our papers but we think even if it is a useful imitation it's not limiting particularly in the context we think of the jepson claim which is designed to recite what is in prior art and then together and typically what is then the body of the claim is the structural limitations defines in fact what the invention is and we think particularly in that context would be inappropriate