agreement and your honor we did not argue the opposite at page four thousand and nineteen dollars of the joint appendix there is our original claim construction position and in our plain construction brief we said or not in the additional dependent limitation of one hundred and twenty dollars your honor but when you add to claim twenty the full independent claim eighteen we do have an a for excuses because claim claim twenty is referring not only is the term unsorted present in every plane but that term was added by the application by a men men as the sole basis for overcoming a prior art rejection and in these circumstances your honors no your honor it doesn't and the nd sentence that you quoted your honor uses that now or a term unsorted mixed color color the st sentence that you quoted uses the more generic term mix color call it however unsorted mix is a subset of mixed color call it and this court is held in cases like union oil that the specification can contain disclosures that are broader than what's covered by the claims and it's also instructive your honor to see how that specification means the nd thing that you said when you look at the specification passage here alone it is not entirely clear whether mixed color or call it in the st sentence is being used as a broader term to disclose both honor to see how this nd sentence in the passage you quoted got into the specification because in the original specification the term unsorted was not present at all and in the amendment to overcome the prior of the joint appendix the applicant said the title of the invention the abstract and the specification of the present application has been amended to clarify that the invention relates to a method of creating recycled glass products  particular color from unsorted mixed color glas every claim and what we see the applicant describing at these two pages is that it was not known to use unsorted mixed colored last caller sort of mixed color call it is off the table at this point it's not part of the claims any more how do technological properties limited versus wild way in or in the striker it is irrelevant whether the outlook hint could have overcome the prior art rejection by doing less here perhaps the outlet hand could have just argue and traverse their rejection and said no you don't understand this is what mix color call it means this is how it's being used in the claims and we don't know what would have happened if that's what the up can be done maybe we would not be here today because maybe the patent wouldn't have issue your honor its wares with claim one because even though the entire set of ingredients is ultimately mixed together to claim requires that the d colorize are selectively d colorized a color of the color it doesn't was more sophisticated than that well your honor if our characterization is not correct on that one of the things that we believe is wrong here in what the and on the cross appeal now i'd like to get anything else i can but one of the things they think the district court did wrong is the most important factors the jury found that this was the most egregious conduct in the district and didn't disagree the jury found that it was especially worthy of punishment the district court doesn't agree the district found that there was copying no good f validity no good faith belief in an infringement and concealment on top of that if this is not a case in which you would want to have enhancement it's hard to imagine one year where you would and when you get to the additional factors the district court actually did commit clear error because for example just report said hey remedial efforts count against enhancement here but identified no remedial efforts so the duration of infringement counts against i think has been here but identified nothing that would shorten the period it basically infringement lasted basically the whole duration of the of the patent and then finally the district court barely addressed all of the instances of litigation misconduct were brought up it addressed only one false affidavit and even for that one i'm frankly i don't states the priority date and it's a mysterious folder called old no one explained the origins of that the jury was entitled to believe that that wasn't really all batches at all but even on top of that the destructive six different reasons why it didn't anticipate that was wrong on both fronts st there was other evidence showing batches that included as much as forty percent or fifty percent of collection that was single color color internal call it that was all of one color and so the district has a substantial quantity of green and they need to d colors that green so there's a change there and it's a change that has every time they say look we didn't change our processes oh yes they did we've moved to cooper's oxide for a very special purpose that helps you deal with mix color col well it says that one is that it can't be done can't be done it says look for some providers basically need a car they need it to be separated by color green flint amber if it's mixed color color if you come to the into impurities or excess quantities so if you're making flint excess iron could be a problem as you might use a lead you to get rid of the excess iron in the raw materials or if you have a single color color you're using and you want to lighten it you might use the color risers to lighten  single but the idea of selectively d colorizing much less selectively gee colorizing color collect and colorizing the remaining color doesn't appear anywhere in the part and it doesn't appear in anything that our di was doing and remember there proof here is that they're judge that the jury was entitled to believe our evidence over their evidence and again the burden here is it has to be so overwhelmingly clear that no reasonable juror could believe that they weren't doing it before so  compelled to say that they met the clear and convincing burden in that defense of prior use and also i'd also point out that with this there was an i p r on this and it wasn't even initiated because it wasn't anticipating and it wasn't in the prior art and this actually tells you what skilled artisans would have understood sorted to me it's grown line forty as talking about the goal of the invention it says in this manner recycled glass and mixed colors is rebuild you did to provide material substantially as useful for recycled containers as sorted amber green glass or flint glass so we have mixed colored glass on the one hand and when it talks about sort it it has sorted amber glass green glass o i think that meaning is also reinforced before i turned quickly to prosecute to the prosecution history as read forced by the glass packaging institute document that i referred to before it makes it very clear that we're talking about sorted you mean you won't actually see anything referring to some hybrid between unsorted mixed and sorted single color those are just the two categories th so you can have that's treated as sordid because it all comes and it's like when it's sort of the curb and the consumers put out different colors the experiment just sort of it would be unsorted in the sense that it in the sense of using it as a verb as an adjective i haven't been sorted but it hand it doesn't mean that those are the only two things in the universe and what would a skilled artist in reading this pat and in light of this prosecution history believe the skilled artisan would see that the original claims all said mix color c and then in response to the examiner's prior art rejection was your record evidence of that your honor the record evidence of what a skilled artist and you're under the record evidence is the entire intrinsic  record because of think yes right right in light your honor of this court's case law in cases like man just off the oracle where the court looked at the term local memory devices and said that you have to give that claim term meaning under this well established presumption in the law hansard of i'm sorry your honor your honor the specific parts of the intrinsic record that that informed the understanding of a skilled artist and here would be one each and the district court received there was trial testimony from both artists witnesses and rd parties and from g m g s witnesses that are they and other parties had used sort of mix color color before the priority date of the patent your honor we were not relying in this appeal on that extrinsic evidence for the understanding of the skilled artist in what we're relying on your honor is what the school hours and would have believe when it took the intrinsic materials here and this court in philips for example said that in that plane the terms had steel baffles and the core said there is therefore a strong presumption that baffles are not inherently made of steel likewise in mind of selfie oracle the court said there's a strong presumption that local memory device does just mean any memory device and when the patentee tried to read local out of the claim this court said that defect is particularly severe because the term local was added by amendment in order to overcome a prior art rejection and our facts your honor are on all fours with the magra soft case and it would be unprecedented for this court to read this limitation somehow covered sorted mix color color and that is why your honor the dish of course claim construction error cannot stand and it is also undisputed your honor that once the claim construction error is corrected judgement as a matter of law is appropriate in art as favor because as the district court recognized that appendix page eighteen and g m g does not dispute are to be used only sorted call it up in its operations and therefore this court will not even then this court would need to address the other issues that are raised in our his appeal because these selectively not infringe an argument and the invalidity argument do not depend on correcting the claim construction error in fact your honor if i may briefly and its prior process and the part that was undisputed was that there was no change in artist process before the party dated the patent to after the priority date of the patent their witnesses consistently testified to continuity and there was no evidence contradicting the continuity there were certain evidence from their expert trying to chip away at the invalidity case but it remains undisputed that there was no change in the process and therefore if g m just proof was good enough for