certainly at the time and so this was something rather noteworthy the inventor found the key was to use the look asian of the receivers were too attached to the containers at critical times one whenever a box or container with picked up and then again when it was put down and by infernal location of the container from the receiver which was attached at those critical times you could track and say wherever whenever you wanted where your teams were and with some additions to the base station what was in those containers  introduction something that's obviously very much heed to the accused products put aside the q s products for a moment and just think about the patent in the written scripture what in there focuses as you described in as you did in your introductory remarks on the pick up and drop off times as opposed to any time there is a talk about intermittent sending the nation the summary intervention talks about sending the information upon request and i would think that that is a awfully strong reason to draw the conclusion in this context that the transceiver had better be actually on the container why would sitting in the fr yard not just for the ten minutes that the handling vehicle is moving it to locate picking up from the location of what location one moving it to a location number two because you would not then be every five minutes and so forth  me posit for purposes of this that the word attach might mean a number of different things but it depends on the context and so i'm trying to understand in the context of this path and the major difference it seems to me that is made by whether the transceiver is on the container for long periods of time while the container is sitting in the freight yard or is in proximity of the container by virtue of being attached to the handling vehicle during the ten minutes that the handling vehicle is holding the container is that in the former case the transceiver can send real time information about where the container is to a certainty upon request any time you want to try you ever consider you quite where is the other system requires gives you information that is historical minute the handling vehicle drops the container off and moves away which has a certain amount of reliability but is not the same as getting the information upon request right and if you so in the end just to complete the picture you know that that  in the system is other bodies you would get the information where the paper is by going to the base station say well where was it last but not as opposed to the container being somewhere where it was last put down and five one if i if i make i'm running into a bit of time to help please again but we recognize that other panels of the structure of this court have held that the right meaning is something less than the ordinary meaning even frankly in the you have sometimes passages in the specification that define the invention in terms of the now or mean you have words like the invention is the invention requires or sometimes it's the important feature of  image we don't have any of that here the images there are said to be this thing including direct connection direct connection is never said to be an important feature all we really have of the c h p the thing is this first of all there's no actual evidence you just turn your article as a matter of common sense if your system knew that the receiver was going to be twelve inches or two feet to the left of the container structure makes it difficult to obtain the result you're talking about that's not enough and this court in decision dot com five twenty seven s thirteen hundred with a similar argument the him was verify the applicant's identity the district court narrowed that to mean using certain information exactly which itself didn't require any particular information this court noted there's not much in the spec about how it would be done exclusion of indirect infringement from the construction i think it's helpful to understand what the district will the court really weren't arrested so we can understand direct attachment correct and when you see is what they're arguing they're challenging the court exclusion of indirect attachment of any indirect attachment from the scope of the claims but what you see is there was no such broad exclusion in the different courts construction in addressing the attaching limitation the district court said there were two or connect with the plain in ordinary meaning of attach in the context of these times and if you frame it that way that's what you see that the district court actually addressed in its claim construction order and they didn't find no literal infringement because it excluded all in direct attachment it restated its claim construction ruling that it can't just be mean or association or connection with that i have to denote something more than an abstract contrary to what accounts are represented here it's noteworthy that there is no mention anywhere if you look through the patents anywhere of any vehicles or any container handling equipment moving things around in the freight car it's talk specifically about the  containers it being stored it being stacked and sitting places sometimes being misplaced so that was not the focus of the invention everything time they talked about the receiver they talked about it being on the for a container i won't top of the sides could be directly could be indirectly that has to be on it with that container and if you see every time they talk about it but i really i know that the question of literal infringement under the words a fix or fastened to is not in fact before us and that has not been appealed but why doesn't as a practical matter isn't this of about the length of time with which seems like there's a sort of a transitive property here that means that the transceiver is for that brief period fastened to the container but that issue isn't in front of us but it all seems to do actually find out unless somebody actually move the transceiver and the other is to say oh six weeks ago we have a record and goodness we hope this thing wasn't moved in the interim without our kno right and one of the issues that patent says that it was trying to address is how do we identify a misplaced or lost items and if you're just relying on pick up and drop off you can't do that where is that that is located is a daunting task considering the often dynamic nature of a free country on earth and good we presume incur though i mean the other point is in addition to time you think about taking to their arguments a logical conclusion just because i am a container handling equipment and i pick up a container to say that the g p s receiver located inside a computer that's inside the operating the driver  side of the thing is now fixed to the container is like saying the steering wheel of the vehicle is now affixed to the container or the windshield is affixed to the container riveting things to a logical conclusion with a term like attached which can i think you agree includes certain forms of indirect attachment it seems to me taking things to a logical conclusion is it's not it's not appropriate to the to the task of because we're talking about a physical box that's bolted into the driver area of the container handling acquit me that's carrying a container versus a steering wheel that's bolted on to the vehicle that's attached to that has it's carrying a container or a windshield that is part of the driver compartment that is carrying a container so i think those things are exactly on hard and i am not i totally agree that when you take th  if one accepts the district court's claim construction and one accepts the ruling of the district court excluding certain report of dr rice that has a rather conclusory paragraph in it and the material that was in the record at that point of course you have to view that against our requirement that a pente must provide here not good enough i started around about on that no no i'm saying i didn't understand what you're saying i think there's two reasons here first looking specifically at what the issue was being appealed on and discussed in brilliant instruments the so what the court was really saying there is no in there to this circumstance you have to look at what the accused equivalent is and make and actually go through the analysis so the real issue being appealed was the first  the discussion was whether we should even touched you know you because it would be claimed that so that was actually what the case was about and then it went through well and so you've got to go through the deal you know this in there was a statement well they had they had a citation at the end and if you look at it it was some experimental reports that were just saying the the west declaration if the last sentence you for the last sentence  yes he has you're correct i think in the appendix to the to the that case it's there was a sentence at the end of dr west declaration says these properties you demonstrated by appear that when you look at the entirety of the west declaration he did specifically refer to certain test results which we don't have the equivalent some for us to actually make a determination of sufficiency the court there said it was in passing but mark what about the various statements though and i think there are there's incredibly from i think they were statements from the defendant company and various items which talk about how the shays work you're familiar with all those various statements in the appendix can those be used as kind of a supplement out particularize testimony and leaking argument as to the sistan szell insubstantial differences are the equivalency and what that evidence actually points to is talking about exactly just what the but there is no evidence about the clip and see there's no comparison there's no comparison and actually that's what you actually find in mr ryan's report also he'll talk about hears in the parents that are killed in a conciliatory fashion here's what i think the is being claimed so that is primarily what is missing it is just a conclusion and there is a case that i didn't cite in my brief that is pretty analogous to the situation  testimony as to function when result but what was less lacking is why over function overall function with a result that was identified why that is substantially is the same as what was claimed in the patent and why the particular features in the particular things that were identified is the same to one of the ordinary so far and that's what we have but these are two different approaches that are both within the invention with respect to the length of time we we don't see that length of time is part of the