at least the market hearing it probably if your guy did that but that's the problem is you didn't give him a reasonable claim instruction that was based on lexicography you came up with an entirely new word that i didn't see talk about anymore and he insertion in the detail description but not repeated in sections providing background to and summaries of the invention of his not undercut the significance of the passage indeed it makes it more significant  there's numerous cases from this court saying that disclosures of the air in the detail description and particularly those that follow the convention is statement are particularly significant i don't have a case in front of me but  i think there are numerous cases from this court to the point of whether it's not eating it makes it more s the term laminated and frankly there's other sections they use the term search term shown none of them relate the two to each other and right i don't think that helps you right but it's that's not inconsistent saying throughout the pageant that from the pleasure lemonade together correct that would be an explicit definition we don't have that here i concede my point was only that if there is one definitional statement and then that redefined the term laminated with that statement i understand there's only one use of the term limited throughout the rest of the  i found a single sentence or even not even mentioning the term in question in the specification are enough to implicitly redefine the term so that you have a straight sentence changing the way a term is used if that sentence is clear enough that even if there's definitional statement wasn't enough to change all that here we don't have that because the other statements that use the term laminated are not definitional and don't contradict the definition and that one  is similar because the statement the relevant sentence is the same so that stone or otherwise laminated statement which i think the judges your honors have probably noted implies that so is a subset of laminated  government just closes them as subsets of each other not alternative embodiment so claiming the genus even though it wasn't redefined if we get to this part of the analysis doesn't disclose that doesn't just claim the species   construction of the claim they don't infringe but they may still infringed your doctrine requirements in the district court held it as a matter of law so one cannot be an equivalent because it is disclosed in the specification is a separate embodiment and then not claimed our position is that it was disclosure of selling as a separate embodiment from laminated it's a disclosure that relates the two i'll be if we get to this part not in a way that redefines the term me please the court i would like to highlight two points for why that there can be no clear redefinition of laminated in the zero five eight patent how many times would it take them to repeat so or otherwise laminated to make  an explicit or implicit definition this isn't a very well how i mean i've read it over something you know that uses the word limited half a dozen times maybe or maybe a dozen times and it use supplied by that term so merely having the phrase sewn or otherwise laminated repeated would not be enough to be lexicography in this pattern because it's not even if every time they said they were talking about how these fabrics were joined together  if the specification said so or otherwise joined and the claim still recited laminated is that your honour's question is then at that point laminate it is it still a term of art with a plate an ordinary meaning there would need to be something that brings listing seven i think dictionary definitions technical dictionary definitions to support the plain ordinary meaning that the district court found here also in the join page sorry i lost that so your honor stop yes your honor on the issue of we're not relying on a minimum usage your honor posed the question of how many times with this phrase have to be repeated i think the difficulty with the phrase possible i'm aware of no case that applies that dock into reading specifications specifically so if it's just i mean it seems to me you're disputing that some are otherwise laminated equip clearly make subset of laminated and i don't see how that's useful to your argument only for the district or even recognize that the phrase would seem to make it a subset of laminated he just relied on the fact that it wasn't in the context of the entire package clear enough to provide an alternative lexicography i read the district court's opinion slightly differently in that in the abstract there the phrase x or otherwise why would imply that x is a subset of y but here we come to the pattern with this phrase laminated to mean i think joint and that's your problem if that's true if this patent clearly communicated that the word laminated was so broad as to encompass merely being joined then i agree that would be a different case that would mirror the constructions blackford proposed below shown or otherwise united which they've not clear enough to communicate that intent to a person of ordinary skill in the article that's why we have a law in the file history to say that the examiner who is a person of ordinary skill in the art read the claim language read this exact portion of the specification and concluded that this claim term laminated is used consistent with its plain in the ordinary meaning we have direct evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the or would not take the statements on or otherwise laminated in the specification as definitional i'm not sure the examiner said that lamination and concludes that the substitution of lamination for stitching which is a contract that is entirely inconsistent with the idea that sewing is a subset of laminating is well known as seen in the browser yard as shown in in blackbird phrases this issue as the question is whether the specification clearly discloses to one of skill in the article distinct embodiments where plies of the garment are united by sewing and where in the pliers are united by laminated that reference to i think your eyes i'll be brief i think getting back to why or talking about a light a kind of disputing the meaning of this soda or otherwise laminated phrase ology and what that and what that means in the patent is because they  the question then becomes does that seem sentence disclosed i don't need to say distinct alternative embodiments such that if you claim the genus laminated you dedicate the species sowing to the publics and that can't be a claim to the doct