here on an underlying question and perhaps cut through any confusion that might exist the question of the distaste turns on is is this element which is a model of the accused device is this a channel as history that limits it in any way other than the ordinary definition in fact be the family that r c s are doing very specifically there's nothing in the packet of the prosecution history that qualifies or limits the definition of chap that's on page n court adopted from the the various possible definitions of chapter of the beast the definition is a structural element of shaped cross section because that is the appropriate definition in this context going on there phillips now if you look at one side of this element just one piece in isolation it might fairly be called the best and the other side in isolation might fear it because yes it and i guess it is a broader term if you will as r c s is argue but we don't have a vested here and we have several pieces to pieces join with the thirty's to create a new structure and just like the selector is made up of many flat words we wouldn't say this is not like turn it's a collection of flat boards it's a letter and to say that this is not a channel when it meets the agreed upon ordinary definition simply because we could characterize it separate parts is not a proper or a fair argument that this renaming or in a game i believe this is insufficient to counter the fact that they've admitted that they meet the definition the district court apply to a very narrow definition of importing from the drawings a feature that's not a critical part of thank you very much brian my name is gary chief or to represent the response of first i was present to the argument below and i can assure you that these exhibits were were not stipulated to number one they were shown to us at the oral argument the first time you still need to look to the intrinsic proof relative to this to this matter to be able to discern what third parties would be able to glean from that in order to determine what is being protected in this in the three groups to correct though that the i think this privilege cases is controlling here but what is it in the written description that you see that that departs from that yep and if i well i think we have to look first to see that there's not too much in the in the intrinsic file to determine what it is that is meant by check there's nothing in the claim the specification really says that straight it happens to be welded to the back of the of us locally so there are in the prosecution history doesn't define it either it simply says that it is not certain things that distinguishes us from now with respect to this new great characteristic the agree with me then that the district court was mistaken well maybe the probably this curb as that model goes like the back of it is perfectly straight it may be on this but we don't know exactly how it is on and that is a relation to the intrinsic proof of the case is my is my point i'm not arguing against that some are going against the padded cell and the in the claim specifications and the only thing within the the four corners of the bag which is which gives any meaning whatsoever to the claim and that is the goes with her it may be true but by the same token we do not have any had this is not a unique invention it's a crowded field of art and the applicant maybe went to great pains to try to distinguish itself in terms of its channel being not being certain other things and now they tried to move backwards with dictionary definition to say that not only are we what we say we are but or anything else that remotely approaches i think that's inappropriate it's an attempt to recapture that which is it relinquished in order to obtain be the pat should that be interpreted to be a surrender or anything other than an angle well i guess what the point i'm trying to make judge is that the if we're going to the question is whether we should allow the use of a dictionary definition to set the parameters of the pad and i'm suggesting that we should not because of the fact that there has been no expression that that's the definition of a intended the only expression within the intrinsic evidence is merely the drama and i think most people ordinarily skilled new york would assume that the net drawing from their understanding of what a channel generally is would be more to this than th all types of verbal reinforcing devices of which the box gusset is one but merely to distinguish itself in the form of a verbal chant now assuming that the court below is correct and that we do not have literal infringement there's only one other circumstances should be the exception and not the rule and that this really should be a second bite at the apple to extend an appropriate had protection and i agree that as well that the greater test applies and i believe that we do reinforce the back of this of these it's as well as channels at least indicates that in the end the applicants mine that there were talking about two different types of structures and i think that the way that the channels and gussets reinforce different and his result that we would have a distinction in terms of  the way that our particular element reinforces as compared to the way that the channel reinforces it as well we perform an additional function in that not only do we furtively be imports the blade but we also support her reinforce the affected this is not a pioneer type of invention we are there are a lot of prior snow pushers out there that had been bad i come from up north and we had lots of snow and you see all kinds of configurations out on the streets all of them tried to limit itself very very closely to channels as being different from and better than anything else in the market and was based upon that the office of allow the spam to go through and now like a compressed stride sponge after getting allowance for throwing a little bit of water on the upper and the the appellant i was trying to expand out that initial narrow field to say that if you look at any kind of vertical reinforcement here is go with or does not qualify under the circumstances and as well structural steel tubing also in french i think it's pretty clear that they're over reaching they're trying to recapture an area that they had to relinquish the and the definition of god by the there that is one possible definition of a channel could be rolled from one piece of metal it could be folded from one piece of metal it could be formed by joining several pieces arguing the definition that's been adopted in this case the court adopted it the parties agreed to it and in their grief i pointed to the r c s brief pages nine thirteen and fifteen they argue that the definition adopted is correct what's the  aspect of the channel is its shape which resists buckling and other forces in a manner that is unique as compared to angles which we agree are not included in certain channel islands it is a little real consequence in either of these examples of the channel whether these side elements are folded from of a larger she whether they are rolled which is a form of folding or whether they are it whether this is cast or extruded as a single piece or whether the sides are attached by welding for example if you were not using steel if you were using c shape crust section the method for producing the channel that would be suitable for a small pusher for example is not addressed because it is not critical it could be made by any method as long as you have that fabricator they make steel pieces of all kinds and one of the things they make is this chapter of the notion of who made it doesn't determine whether or not it's a champ and as i mentioned for r c s to now be arguing that the not maybe not quite right it is well switching in which is in the middle of the stream here the court correctly observed that nothing was relinquished in the way of the meaning of chattel simply a distinction was made and