the third and final arguments of morning is in appeal number zero five dead fourteen fifty four catalyst that is chemical versus a global ground  i thought he said they have to overlap it's not quite the same as being simultaneously start to finish it it is not quite the same but your honor he also used the word simultaneously  time that he prevented is that being in the hard over correct your honor but he also used the word simultaneously in his opinion to describe the overlap so i'm not i'm not trying to force the worst case on the trial judge just construction i'm merely using his own works i was wrong ok he's wrong because the the that focus on the word as again well let me go through several examples from ordinary speech so you could say for instance the parent picked up the toys as the child dropped that doesn't mean that there's overlap between the two technology that's protected by the patent in order to both inform the patent see where he can kick everybody else out and or all the competitors of where they can freely tread is very important what the words mean oh i'm not saying you could say for instance that as lawyers spoke to the judges he drank a glass of water so you have that instance do you think that was why i can certainly see how that would apply if in the course of your argument you  drank a glass of water however if you sat down and during your opposing counsel's argument you had a glass of water i would think you would use the word and even the  agree roger and that's why i say that the two acts have to be very close in time to one another and that's what we had beer with the accused system the so called shotgun over under apparatus used by alternation between the one chemical and the other the one pressure and the other in actuality because this is a method claim the fact that they couldn't do it doesn't create an infringement you have to prove that they airport they did it they either perform the message or they didn't they they can advertise all they want about what they might do or had to do that nothing to do with what they did that infringement is a historical fact they either did practice every step of the method early didn't your burden to prove it how did you where is the proof that they ever practice the method in the manner of what i'm calling the rapid albany there is a videotape or honors that they used so there's no back and forth here but that they are they are simultaneous simultaneously capable of d i i seen an enticing and or clean rinsing both the underside and the top side when the patent uses the expression simultaneously it dictionary does it mean either contemporaneously or side by side well these two operations are done side by side not overlapping t why how are you grounding your argument in the requirement of the case law that the perspective in construing these words and phrases and explanatory sentences in the written description is the perspective of the skilled artist in designing these kinds of whelk about what you know what a parent might say to a child or to talk about you know what the general purpose dictionary patent is technical but there it is composed of words that have common ordinary meaning that don't have and there's been no allegation in this case that the word has a special meaning in this technology that's not my point my  in fact as the examiner did and say the temporality is a single pass it's true that the word simultaneously does occur in column seven but the notion of a single past the airplane moving past the apparatus just wants to both de ice and hand her eyes is pervasive in this that it comes up in the very first sentence in the abstract and before the examiner would allow the case he required to be put into the claim and i would very much like your honor to talk about the prosecution history because i think that is the reason that the trial judge here aircraft will be the ice and anti used in the two step single pass operation so again the simultaneity that's being talked about here is that we are going to do both d i s and anti  his relative past and i think it's very important to look at the notice of allowance where the examiner made the amendment that's relied upon by the trial court not to find this temporal overlap and that the judge as i say relied on this and the examiner added the language that appears toward the very end of the claim he says where the apparatus i'm sorry we're in the aircraft is progressive lee de iced in antis in one pass of the air craft relative to the apparatus it has nothing to do with it with the word as i know is here really for the first time at this moment that the word simultaneously does appear just above and something examiner has added to  the claim but that is simultaneously as used to indicate that the forced air and the glycol mixture exit the docile at the same time it please the core issue here is really very straightforward the claim playing twenty five was of course drafted by the apollo he chose what language to use there and he chose to use and defining his invention the language that he know would be accomplished as the icing continues to be accomplished if that was the only mention in the any question you look to the rest of the pack to see what construction is being kept and the place that you would look first is as good grayson as pointed out to the summary of the convention  the past you want to see bigger pictures of the same thing you could also look alternatively at pages of the fifty seven through with the only problem with that is typically the even reach out and one of them is utterly fundamental to the way the respective inventions here work and that is that the patent that mr gone thought about the stationary apparatus through which of his invention is that the plane you just pulled through a stationary apparatus and in this one pass that you've heard so much about it is first d i i distant second and plane to accomplish that the odds it's different is black and white case we had a very sophisticated engineers on both sides and yet neither party although this case was heavily fought at the summary judgment stage neither party created by the judge or the judges precluded from making this argument but i am saying is that certainly people skilled in the art look very carefully at this passion for some long time and never heard anyone i shouldn't pick on you but decisions based on rationale they don't make argue the argument over when they decide ok heavily with language but lawyers really should be more careful my point is that people still the hard look at the word has and it never occurred to them that there was a requirement in the claim for temporal overlap the court asked  about the number of nozzles would it require at least two nozzles that to infringe this claim two thousand meanings i think was the the court's precise wording and counsel said yes well expressly contradicts the claim and asked to calm seven let me just point out that it is a stated object of the invention one of quite a few stated objects of the invention it doesn't say the invention is the simultaneous application to the i c enticing treatment it says this is one of the objects of the invention and i think the case law of this court is that that an object of the