if we affirm on any of the district courts claim constructions you lose that would be an accurate statement only the extent that there seems to be some question as to the stipulation with respect  some of the elements we were very clear we were only stipulating if for example the means for injecting required this movable heart valve and that was clear in the judge's decision that's why we stipulated the same is true on know turning to way that the district court construe these claims and respect the means for injection you know these claims were den of fide as one trial paragraph six quite clearly and during the i p o are question about me about that since  r it was a den of fighting by tri vascular in numerous cases that the inflation this means was met by inflation tubing and a syringe i know is a different standard of the r i but it seems anomalous that you can have a standard of reasonable and interpretation that has two elements syringe in the tubing and we go to a district court under a philips construction we have an entirely new term new structure the valve which is specifically called out subsequently in the is really the touchstone of anyone else here reading this claim they would have read the structure of the means for element to be the tube and the syringe and it's you know obviously connected to the cuff but it doesn't require the healing function on its own it can the breakaway valve is the very mechanism that holds that tubing into the cuff when you are inflating the inflation material goes in fills up the channels and then it stops flowing because that seal is formed by that breakaway valve does not allow it to go out if you don't have that breakaway connection with a certain french ill fitting then the fluid would just flow right out in the clean term is a valve the inventor intended to use a very broad generic term this is the brake weight belt not part of the al thirty seven as disclosed in the preferred environment is part of that combination have here what we ended up with is a picture claim that is exactly what is in the pan and defeats the very purpose of the pat first of excludes the preferred environment of using the hardening fluid because you only need that break away to allow for repositioning of the cuff after an initial inflation so you you inject the fluid the cup is positioned you look on floor scope and see is it the right place you decide it's not you pull back on the syringe it sort of collapses a little bit and you move it you can't do that if you have this me tray valve which was called out by the district court or moveable flap type valve there by definition backflow preventer they would not allow the fluid to come back out the only valve that works in that context is this breakaway valve the one that the inventor called out called about so we think not only are these constructions wrong on the patent but like i say they defeat the very purpose of  because it actually has to structural elements and only two in that element inflatable protrusions disposed about an inflatable caught up in you say oh well the inflatable patricians satisfies the inflatable requirement to the co it was at the judge required that the claim be completely inflatable or entirely inflated almost like a consisting of you know we did not stipulate because it said there was an inflatable chamber we believe they do have an inflatable chamber in addition to the entire structure is inflated to set for the footnote two of the decision so we are concerned that if the entire cuff has to be inflatable whatever that means that potentially if there's an additional and to be entirely inflatable ok so did i understand you right that they do have both inflatable protrusions and inflatable chamber within their cup is that what you are say the facts yes they do they have these channels that connect all the different producers and those are inflatable chambers and they're part and parcel of how this entire structure gets created in effect by its inflation and then left in the body in that state again my concern simply was we did not want to stipulate unless it was clear the stipulation was only because this phrase it had to be entirely inflatable whatever the color your entire structure is inflated we would not have stipulated that otherwise thing the entire structure is inflated because he has just said you have said in the previous sentence that inflatable cough can have only inflatable protrusions and then look in the text preceeding the footnote where try vascular argues that a dr samuels argues a cup can have an inflatable chamber but such is not required it looks i may be wrong but it certainly looks to me like the arguments you made to this district court was that no inflatable chamber was required inflatable cough under claim term one that did argue that the plan wonder standing i understand that's correct i don't understand you to have defended against summary judgment island of ground that there can be an inflatable chamber but just the entire thing every aspect of it doesn't have to have been inflated that's nothing that's why i'm confused right now because the argument you're making to me it's not an unreasonable argument by any stretch it just doesn't seem to parallel for me what i understood this case to open a bell at the district court and what he felt right we had we had argued the claim one by its very terms is not happening for the chamber claim fourteen and twenty three did so we were urging the construction the claim one did not require an additional inflated chamber other than the truisms and he then found it did he then ruled that in the way he wrote the decision that he did and made this comment that the entire structure had to be inflated we would not have stipulated to not infringement because the device they have does have push regions and chambers so i have a bunch of caution we made very clear in the stipulation that's why we quoted and it's agreed to this quote right out of footnote nine that we were stipulating because of that so in any event this wired address the valve term we we just think the term is used very what structure dr samuels clearly associated with this function and in calling for minds if you're ten we have the cuff inflated and deflated by means of a valve outside of the claims into general statements in the background that is the only place disagreement about whether each of three issues are independently secession if we both agree that if the court agrees with the district court's construction of the means that's enough to resolve this appeal we both agree that valve is sufficient to resolve this appeal the terms of the stipulation twenty three the whole dispute is over whether there's an inflatable and difficult chamber and we think it follows from the logic that that listening to district force construction requires an entirely inflatable chamber or or just and in part inflatable chamber and when using the hardening fluid you inject the fluid you wait until the ardennes and then you pull away at the break away about that's how it works and that's how the dr asked the device shown in the video that was submitted by defendants and you look at that video and see that there are a series of inflatable protrusions and there also are some inflatable chambers some which don't go all the way around so much do and it's been our view that claim one can be an inflatable cuff without having a separate chamber and you can have an inflatable cuff without having its own chamber claim one doesn't like that claims fourteen and twenty three did this now with respect to this idea that the patent talks about something be by means  and that somehow the way some of the worst school would read this patent i came to court by means for transporting a car and i came by means of a street that doesn't mean the street becomes part of the means for transport and in this case the