yes except this court's law is quite clear that an issue of claim construction is refuted no doubt and i think we've cited on page three of four player brief a two thousand specification refers to a gear box and there is no question that the two preferred embody that are set forth in the specification and in the figures are include a gear box there's about the prosecution history i think it's height of horror and of course any proper claim construction analysis should start with the claims themselves and the language of the and if i can just pause in their memory woma if i could back up just to listen to what you and i think we're having the same direction but it seems to me probably i don't think anybody would dispute this but prior what is it march much twelfth two thousand and seven cancel twelve claims and are going to new claims for the purpose of including so far as we can tell a broader description here that using the ordinary meaning of the claim terms meant that the solo star device the accused defies infringes the testimony of sadducees expert was clear on that and said eight forty one thirty eight to thirty not in the record sadducees experts said that if ordinary meaning of the terms of the claims is employed so start in friendships and there's never been any dispute about that up i just want to pause for a moment with the basic black letter law that there is a heavy and presumption that the words of a client should be given their ordinary and customary meaning and that that presumption can be overcome only if the patentee acted  the client structure issues up in front of us and with all respect that was highly correct it is clear what happened seven method is that's also a quote from twenty seven eighty not we agreed with that this happened after the inventor salt published application for  court was wrong about what's at the specification and secondly this is the libel florsheim case but it's on all fours with the two thousand and four decision and lot of floor s one seventy eight which says traditional gearing is prefer that's how column two starts later it talks about the objective which can be obtained the words can see  criticism of threading alone but the claims claim one says no cure boxer's never a mention of gearbox and claim to right after which is line fifty three also it lines sixty seven the last line and the paragraph that begins at line fifty one of column four and they go on the way over this court judge bryson said that there was no prosecution history pertinent to the claim construction ish and with all respect the prosecution history here is very clear as senator he says infringement have been raised judged crew are clearly laid out proper legal framework for addressing the structure and she reached the conclusion that you are minding her discretion she believes there are substantial the spec says when you use a high pitch thread so this means now the threads are actually separated from each other or that the large surfaces between threatens oh brother against each criticizes what i call traditional years that were used in the prior art to connect the injection to the pistons and said those gears in that particular prior are patent had the possibility of coming out of contact with each other teeth in the gears would come out of contact with the notches and that could cause clash so the pattern is very clear that that's  a candidate at least perhaps it's it's undisputed that close in this category because kenny where you cases that we've discussing the core in which it appears that the patent be in the middle of prosecution has decided to broaden the scope of the claims in order to capture a device there now it seems to me almost artificial to then go back and look at the evidence prior to the amendment and ask what was the scope what is the scope of the ultimate patent where what you've got is by clear indication of that patent believe the applicant and we can broaden beyond the scope of what was specifically called now in the written description and perhaps even if we start to get into a litany of problems beyond what was even disclosed in this in in the written description in any way now is it more a position that suppost that the march twelfth two thousand and seven amendment with the canceling claims and adding all the new claims it didn't mention gearboxes and claim suppose that in as a first paragraph the applicant had said we have spotted a device that's out there and we want to make sure in congress so we are you are by getting broaden the claims spec and in which the court instead you can't have it no matter how clearly you've spoken we did cite for that proposition i believe it quotes simon is an expression by patty during prosecution that's a hypothetical that he intends his claims to cover more than what his specification discloses is entitled to a little weight and that the job site for that is  the concept of injection it's also called dosage ministration is some of the claims drug delivery of course this is these are claims directed to injection devices to deliver  or minister drugs through a needle to patients and there are hawks in the client sufficient we believe on to this course case to bring all your box very clearly because each of these clips in the  still specifically requires in defiance of the structure of the injection device by its functional limitations during injection and the past specification makes it very clear the the paragraph prosecution history and the doctrine of clinton differentiation both made it crystal clear that the intention of the patent team here which is what this court has said over and over again is the purpose of looking at the intrinsic evidence to find out what that didn't mention was the intention of the patentee here cleared was to broaden the claims in two thousand and seven and to go gearbox make crystal clear that when it comes to claim construction the intent here was to as an iffy itself said oh and in the requirement of  gearbox and focus on a posh for that reason we think the district court's claim construction was in error and should