some medication that makes me very dry so i of cord to represent aleikum industries which is also called by its d b a name quite quite tech and will use that name in this presentation as an initial matter what i would like to talk about is that is mounted is not a true element of the claim and if you look at the claim you'll see that it has several very important comments the first comment is in the preamble where it says a payroll of mounting you said i want to buy a paint ball to give you something that looks like this especially and many will which has a handle so obviously the word paint color doesn't mean as subtle context it doesn't mean in this context that you and you also have a very long strip of fabric and you have some glue and you put that so you spirally wound the fabric around this long tube and then you cut it up as through its fixed pieces each of these pieces with a handle i know obviously we are saying lol you have to refer to a dictionary definition of the dictionary definition of a role i cylindrical body to rolling over something to spread it out nothing in the definition of a roller nothing in the claimed nothing in the past requires that  the accused device exactly that so there is actual direct infringement now as if you don't accept that products the court finding of not infringement based on the claim of literally french meant was correct and straight forward the night sixty three and all claims of the night sixty three require that a paint roller be mounted on an outer additional augments but they were throughout its opinion it clearly says that the fabric alone which is what quality tech and pens is the must be the paper where the fabric cannot serve the function of a paint roller because it doesn't have the richard in your corner it doesn't have that core which without that it cannot serve the function of throwing paint onto a surface so i think the district court in making that finding in fact demonstrated that the doctrine of quittance cannot apply in this case  attempting to overcome the missing elements within this case all claims require that the payroll be mounted on the separate cylinder and the cues device so that mount the paint roller directly onto a cylinder instead it mounts it onto a part that's similar to what's referred to in the patent at the end piece so without the cylinder quality check to argue that if you break apart the paint roller into two components cylinder on one hand which is the inner core of the payroll or and the fabric on the other hand the inner core of the roller can meet the requirements of the cylinder but the district court correctly rejected this argument not because they didn't find that the inner core of the payroll or couldn't meet the limitation of a cylinder but because once you remove the cylinder from the fabric you're left only with the strip of fabric and the strip of fabric did not meet the district court's construction of a paint roller what is there something you know a precedent that suggests there has to be a one to one correspondence between the elements in the claims and the elements in the accused divines lead and namely what i'm suggesting is it possible that two different claim elements could be satisfied by a single unitary structure in the queues device under the doctrine not literally clearly  and in some cases yes in this case no that's because in this case the patent requires a position of relationship between the paint roller and the outer cylinder so in order to infringe you have to have separate correct ok so why can't a single cylinder with fabric being equivalent of this limitation outer cylinder upon which the paint molar is mounted because the requires that that be you have an outer cylinder and that you then mount the paint roller onto that outer cylinder if you use the inner core of the payroll or to satisfy the outer cylinder then what you're left with is just a retaining that satisfies two limitations in the claim and we do have such a case and so how do you justify the difference here i mean because of course as you know is a matter of quitclaim drafting you have to explain the structural relationships between the components so every claim must do that if you've got two or components articulated you have to explain how they work together as part of the unitary structure that you're claiming so i don't know are you is this are you making a  is that it's not just we have an outer cylinder and we have a payroll or we have it we have not only those elements but we have the language that says they're connected in a certain way the one is mounted on the other so i have it is just one cylinder in essence vitiate either the claims of the outer cylinder limitation or the necessary inner core and it makes a substantial structural difference in the way the devices is put together it's that it's not substantially the same if your we don't look at substantially the entire does not look element by element for the way so the question isn't is the device move or all substantially different but rather is that elements operate in a substantially different way to perform the function right so if we look at whether there is a quibble as to the paint roller the paint roller being defined as a cylinder with fabric wrapped around it only look at that and you compare that to the fabric the answer is no because the fabric by itself cannot perform the function of a pail or it cannot roll you presume that it's impossible almost for two elements in the claim to be condensed into a single element in the acute device and tell me how the function where result test we differ in your mind if i were to ask you to focus on not the fabric itself but the fabric mounted in the cooler and how that functions and the unitary structure i think i'm not sure i understand that  distinction because the we're comparing the doctrine of equivalence to the paint roller element or looking at the what was construed as the payroll or to the fabric yes but i'm saying why can't they aren't use that the accused device the paint  roller under the doctor's equivalents is in your device the paint roller mounted on the cord so it has a coup or as well as the fabric because i think then you're going back to what what you just said with we can't do it we can't look at the device put together with the different parts combined we have to look at it element by element so far as what it is what you're saying is that the outer cylinder the couper of the paint roller be to see the doc and requirements because one has to be mounted on the other they have to be separate that's correct the quali tech takes issue with the court's construction of paint roller and argued that that paint rollers could mean just the fabric but we begin with the admission that quality second makes which is that the standard definition of a paint roller is in fact fabric with an inner core cylinder and so the district court correctly looked to see whether something in the patent defined that the payroll of being referred to here has a special definition and it doesn't and in fact the patent says any commercially available paper will or can be used with this mounting device and there's not a single piece of evidence in the record that shows that the term paint roller has ever being referred to as just a strip of fabric contrary to that there are examples in the record both from quality text catalogue and windsor's catalog where the term paper roller is being used precisely as the district court held which is a cylinder surrounded by fabric we also have the prior art that's referenced in the patent which also has examples of the term paint roller being used consistent with the court's construction of a cylinder surrounded by fabric and then there was also the two cases cited where two different federal courts in wagner and booster brush also found the meaning of the paint roller must be a cylinder with fabric wrapped around it a quality tech relies almost exclusively on its own owner was also the inventor of the patent testimony as to what a paint roller means but discord has repeatedly held that the testimony of the inventor is entitled to little or no consideration because it's typically just self serving after the fact statements about what should have been put into the patents itself on the d s you of attorney fees  was it was obvious that the patent didn't have an outer cylinder obvious that a strip of fabric itself could not be a paint roller or the equivalent of a paint roller because it doesn't perform the function of rolling paint onto a surface this case the twist to extend the r s three hundred doesn't have not just on the cage and it's brief now quali tech tried to frame that issue is a case of mistaken identity we thought they sold the product but but it turned out they didn't and when we were told we were true the claim but in fact windsor doesn't sell that product it's the r f three hundred twist to extend that quality tech to cubes of infringing the patents that product of doesn't have not just and there's been no explanation as to why quality tech suit winds product or not but the district court clearly held that it was quality tax insistence that the fabric can be a paint roller was quote dismally below the reasonableness threshold so the this record clearly found that  the function of the paint of the fabric cannot serve the same function as a paint roller and to that it was that construction that was on reasonable and that forms support for the exceptional case holding finally quality tech conventional war but clearly the word roll it must mean the fabric or else it could not be any conventional war so it just doesn't make any sense to do that the only way you can convert a conclusion that view is that this is this claim has any meaning is that if the word roller means fabric now if you want to except that it has a core clearly the fabric is the acquittal and of need to reach the question of attorney's fees because there is no we believe that this court should find that the fabric is the equivalent of a role with