this case despite this accent at the very least proved infringement is a matter of law with respect to one of the patents and it's a very early show that there are questions of fact regarding the second pencil there are the first the eight seventy seven patent relates to a more efficient design for gripping this nodding cutting and ejecting the wire that really results in a product with fewer moving parts and results in fewer breakdowns the second to claim using the word respective twat does that require a four element i don't think so your honor respective is an open ended term not like different but the claim specifically doesn't use the term forms a function of war of saying more than one if you didn't include a language a respected one in this language you would have languages said each of the operator by is associated with the clue one of which is associated with the group or not or cutting element cover so potentially you have a requirement that each of them is associated with all four of those elements one of the sensually said that it only needs to be associated with one of them and then a respective makes the term more open ended and the on gated operator bodies may be associated with it's not a term like different that says it has to be associated with a different one of the group or not or cutter or cover it's a more open ended term than differen to fifty six the pedant talks about where in the swinging of the operator bodies in the single direction affects said time the operation said time the operation is is defined further up in the specification as the  activity of the group or the knot or the cutter and the cover so what the claim is a hole is intended to say is instead of these prior art devices that had different unreliable components in them but we have the even good operator bodies which are performing all four associated with with multiple of the group or not or cutter cover if there's any doubt about the claim language itself and you just need to look at the specification which specifically talks about two of the longest operator bodies that interact with both of the nod and the cover the only way you get to be forty on gated operator bodies that the court says are required is if you if you construe the claims as as requiring relocated operator bodies to interact with one in only one law i understand why right and i think in the browse by fifty four pattern the spring baseballs the last motion and the well that was the point of all the amendments in this patent is to describe it as it is using the long in an operator bodies rather than these these  due we did file a motion for for discovery of saying specific thirty six depositions that we wanted to have another discovery that we wanted to have and that was denied by the judge before we even had had the summary judgment briefing do which was for my cent specifically it would relate to the ninety two patent which is the second patent of it's it issue here which relates to the amounts for the cover which is the specific limitation it issue relates to the amount being able to rotate through an arc of about ninety degrees the only thing that leggett claims prevents their amounts from rotating through ninety degrees is a stuff that's attached to the vice with two screws now we presented evidence that this st the second patent application of leggett that the court has taken judicial notice of when they filed their server applied to discuss about this specifically teaches that this stuff is removable that it is figures twenty six and twenty seven in paragraphs ninety two and one hundred of latest batman patient publication two thousand and twelve zero zero one two zero one three this is exactly the kind of evidence that we felt we could get if we were given  discovery even without additional discovery we had the evidence of our expert which indicated that one stock was removable and when the stock was removed as leggett is now indicating it is intended to be removed that the that the amou pretty at least three elongated operator bodies were the very least be the equivalent of any law gave the something with four elongated operator body essentially all they did was take the view of gated operator body that operated the cutter and combined it with one of the e twist the knot and remove the cup two functions performed by the two arms together that's not one arm each performing a separate function so the district courts made a flat out air in a two paragraph claims instruction should we start this all over again no your honor the district court's statement and i want to make sure i'm tracking your the words i'm worried about this the  performs one function which is wrong the district court stated in your honor that an ordinary reading of the quantum language assigns the machine for arms a single function but we believe that  ordinary reading of the claim language giving meaning to the words each in the phrase our respective one is correct the court then went on and he's correct i said that if a claim has been and the district court adopted our position that there needed to be according to the plain language of the claims as informed by the soul and body mind in the specification identifies four elements it doesn't say those elements performs separate individual functions non overlapping does it does not then that district court made a flat out hair and would why wouldn't that pair permeated the rest which he then says well because we have four individual functions you've got to have four separate on arms and in fact this case looks an awful lot like to let where they just combine two elements in the  again i think what the judge was doing to to the extent you're giving deference to the judges claim construction is my line construction we're not giving any difference go ahead all right then the analysis is look at the plain language of the claims each operator body being coupled to a respective one of the river the knot or the cutter and the broad i think they are claiming for functions they could claim to function say for the quantum seven functions they chose to claim for functions but they didn't claim for arms i believe they did your honor i believe they claim claim construct it is not inconsistent with the claim construction requiring at least four arms extending from the show you are correct in the soul in bottom no there is an arm a single arm that is dedicated to the grip or function on the other end there is a single arm that is dedicated to the cover function i'm sorry it to the cutting sumption right in between there are two arms the knot that are both required both required to perform how can you say that's not inconsistent with the clean construction that you're advocating we are advocating the claims of structural requires for arms extending from the chest that is but if you are you only get to four arms because you which undermines how you get to where you want to go in terms of form based on the plain language does it not know your honor i don't get it done as a to b but when we look at figure seven  separately for form to function each of them separately cannot perform the two functions if it refers to them specifically in the specifications as a pair of i'm eighteen not or uncover operators it makes a clear that both of them are first in the skilled in this are when i read this see the functions that are being forms see that two of these arms are performing two functions not just one and wouldn't  rather intuitively be able to say why i could combine two of these arms on one hand into one or i could combine two of these arms on the other end into one this is pretty interchangeable technology why wouldn't one of skill in the art see that this is a technology that allows that kind of flexibility and then they read the claim and they say elements on the one arm i think somebody is still nor could have seen where you could perform more than one function using a single r and that in fact  true to both the plain ordinary language of the claims and the soul embodied in the specifications actually that's your problem if you've got to read the whole thing not just so you read it all together doesn't it give you a clear him or each of these arms working together to perform the function correctly and they can be combined into different elements to do that and if they would have drafted the claims my reading of your honor respectfully is that they don't teach that they are both required and referred to him again as a pair of making arms since that is a given those two middle ones why wouldn't want to skilled in the art say you know what they could have the claim to overcome the prior art had they chosen plain language and said something to the effect of an operator body being operated operability coupled with a grip or not or cutting element and cover then i probably would here making this argument i'm looking for a claim construction that is true to the plain language of the claims and that's where i believe judge hughes was correct in saying that if you look at the claimed a plane in order to read in the plain language says that there are but we don't do that we read the whole patent all together even even better and that includes the preferred body then which has two arms performing two functions unscathed the case i'm going to talk about is a case where there were prior art rejections the patentee had the ability and a decision to make about he or she was going to define structurally the claim and you specifically words and phrases such as the respective ones in north american container for example the plastic pack for fifteen s third thirteen thirty five it's a two thousand five case the court stated that the fact they claim to do not cover certain own amendments are made in order to gain allowance over prior art and that is one example i think it does happen i've seen it happen i don't believe this is a case where they amended the claims to exclude any embodiment but i do believe it happens that you can go in there with a disclosure a written description and over the course of time over multiple generations rightly or wrongly that's  because i think it tracks with the deal with the gillette case where it was a group of and then they identified a first second third blade and of course the possible that was a group of first second and third planes and what they have done is make two second place that's pretty close to this  again i i don't believe in it i don't have to learn from me i don't believe in gillette they used to claim language that we're using here not identical of course not and i believe to give this claim language and the specification me also and specifically in a one fifty five a one fifty six of a of that motion we talked about and asked for additional discovery specifically information regarding the parties  accused who had purchased products and also we wanted a thirty six deposition which was not allowed at the court denied that requests for additional discovery at a seventeen of the record just six days record where we asked for that additional discovery and in responding to their motion for summary judgment with respect to the issue of the eight thirty seven patent i think the court did right on the point that you have to look to the specifications decide what these terms mean and it's clear in the specification that you don't get an operator bodies can interact with one or more of the cutter the knot or the grip or the cover the court has no further questions i can i can see the rest of my time