determination was based on a restricted definition of hide even though that word is defined more broadly in the summary of the invention so although the background sections does say that pods are typically typically somewhat flattened dish a filter packets containing coffee and then the third is where it's not be limited to it could be a little bit broader than this but we're looking at definitions in the background and then there's a different definition of the summary of the invention and so that what was happening for leave the decision for both equated the two definitions and so that there was there wasn't record evidence for that so and that being said that was also true for the meaning of pot so the definition the i t c with would would presume that two different definitions one  embodiments that are shown use separate pods the embodiment shown your honor according to the record evidence and it's the same thing as i point out because there are figures that show inside the capsule there's no question about that but there are also figures that show that the capsule there's no filter in there there's no pod in there and so what you would know from the person of ordinary skills yeah i could put a filter in there i don't need to put upon that design i could also put in  understand that all i need to do now is to put a pod in there and i'm i'm ready to go so that's that's one possibility or other it's not the only one and the record evidence based on the definition of pod i mean if if include but not be limited to and then it goes on to describe a pot wouldn't that be five if i read that and i go back to figure one day and i say ok i know i can put a pot in there but i'm not the trial at issue is a container adapted to holbourne material and this is a broad limitation that was not in the original plans arm sought and received a plain meaning construction for this term and under that claim meaning it did or they are generally generally to affirm the finding of invalid the outcome of the written description question is the same under all of that very similar definitions of pot that the pet specification recites all that matters is that the pipe is separate from the pot disclosed convention which always requires a separate pot two forty forty two forty six and figure two identifies the passageway to twelve so in accordance with the patent of the brew coffee flows through this narrow passageway but in the social products by contrast coffee flows through a large metal it does it in the consistent manner in different places and it just seems to me that that from what you're just arguing that different types of filters existed in the in  the in the industry in the order of the time that you could have very easily written the special occasion in a way so that we wouldn't be here but it's not grim that way certainly  pretty i can understand that point but what i will say again is if these things were known and we're not talking about a primitive and uncertain technology and i say if but it's in the record evidence of a work if i have a you argue that because of the words but not limited to me if it hadn't been for that you you wouldn't have been are you i mean that's your regime on those three words but not be limited to and you