this is actually i'm candidly speaking for myself i'm really struggling with this because it seems as a procedural matter it's a very there was no claim construction here the other side asked for a claim construction which i think in your view would have done the opposite of what was in choir and it was rejected by the trial judge but they were left with a plain and ordinary meaning and it seems to me that at the end of the day that claim construction of what a plain ordinary meaning is kind of drives the whole vitiate argument even the nd judge unjam all the vat majority of his determination was based on his constru called to micro and there we said none and then a plain ordinary meeting wasn't good enough for the heart of the dispute came down to claim construction and the claim construction should have been done did you ever you knew this was part of the dispute assembly unquestionably sees the screw is he right about that or what's your just not and i know i'm well i'm confused what how is what just we construe the hollow possible because the drum is not mounted on a separate shaft from assembly has nothing to do with the claim it's very clear the use of the term hollow hub which is described as being hollow so the stroop you go into it and it uses the term hollow dru expert is talking about little infringement so a lot of this stuff is a little infringement and the difference but there is testimony right is there not a mother look at nice test about a i'm sorry w separate terms one and defined in element c and one in eighty and why would it be written element h if they were the same why would you write a claim that everybody relies on that says have decided to pursue a claim construction that was never presented by them either to the dish a court or to the to the jury i take your point adopted what i think is the proper construction of these terms and it's also the plain meaning in my view and that's why the plain meaning still works in this case is that the drawing is repeatedly described throughout the entire record in this case including accent caps with their hollow hub what that tronics did at trial was they didn't really try to address that because a just said plain meaning and they kept on pointing to their drug and saying we don't have an end with a hollow  and because the jury found that there was no hollow hub literally met by the accused product and that the end cap that included their extended hub was an because they also concluded that the device the product did not include literally the hollow hub and because that's part of element h which was a disputed term they concluded that while it has the equivalent of a hollow hub that can't make it literally in french and it still has to be doctrinal quick once analysis and i think that they were heavily swayed by some of the instructions they received on the earlier limitations the base member  number of equivalent elements i have to say that this really unfolded as to variations between the two designs which were extrapolated across multiple limitations i think the questions  where we are on this appeal only one of those elements are now being challenged challenged as a matter of law and quite frankly i think the challenge is this last merit because obvious claim construction and what the jury concluded with the obvious ordinary meaning of the term hollow drum is a drum that includes it's an attached and and hollow hub and when you read the claim with that in mind it makes perfect sense of probably a three inch probably wouldn't make a difference and when you get up to ten or twelve inches one of the benefits of the saying was to have a more compact design at some point maybe you would last february but i don't think that it's fully enclosed within the hollow hub which was which would emulated precisely and that's an important aspect for these wenches because they should around unused for long periods of time and dust and other that there's such i mean the the intrinsic record here is so one sided and that's why ordinary meaning works and in fact their their expert conceded that the ordinary meaning is dictated by what the definition is in the in the spec the definition for khalid drum in the spec was clearly laid out to include both the tubs and they don't have any counters that at all when you look at exactly h you can see that it's talking about an arrangement where the the and the the obvious one would be the screw that was shown in the block which was of record and in front of them i think there were covers that they put on screws and some of the designs earlier but i don't i don't think there's any record of that in in in the in the proceedings however but that would be the that's the critical result i mean mr swift came up with a radical new way of doing this he fixed the screw and he made the drum rotate with the threaded not at the or any of the other things that the nd circuit doesn't allow review on quick way to the n s a one thing i wanted to send that is to make a point is that in the robinson decision that dealt with the damage where they did challenge great weight of the evidence it would just be written a hollow hub sized to receive the screw that's not how it's written and people have to be able to rely on it why would you use hollow hollow drum to separate turns moreover many of the other claims and throughout the specification hollow size to receive the screw so that's another basis for vitiate so this is not a question we talk about the two inches away this is not a question of degree this is a question of a complete absence of the structure if it were a if the if the claim read a screw that passed within two inches of the drum and it was or one inch of the drum and it was actually two inches and that's a question of degree this is a question of a screw that can not go into the hollow drum it's simply cannot be received by the hollow drum because there is a shaft running through the hollow drum that is solid for two to receive the script let's run the questions around are all rest ok so let me just review the bidding i think that because you did not address the cross appeal in your