the court two very different claims are at issue here but what's common to them both is that they're playing an ambiguous language does not require two or more camps and the district this district court importation of that convex portion of the accused product does contact the to be a post we have evidence that there are at least two points of contact one on the concave surface of the u knee from extension to fluxion the only contact required by claim one is for the posterity or convex surface of the cam to contact the post at the position recited in the klein at or before ninety degrees of flexion contact between other surfaces of the cam structure in the post as needed required nor precluded again the plain words of the client do not require two or more cam specification provides no basis for requirement of two or more cams to the contrary the specification teaches two ways to implement points of cam action by individual distinct cams or through a single cam structure with multiple distinct cam surfaces it states that column four lines thirteen through sixteen quote the structures according to the invention may be individual distinct bars or are you looking at are you looking at the four to six i'm going to read whatever i referred of benambra for the port to six pack because the specifications are the same in most respects but things appear in different thirteen through sixteen and you can use individual cams or you can use a single cam structure with multiply y and why isn't the better reading of that you can either have all your can connected to each other or you can have individual can well that's that's in essence what it says but if they're connected if  individual cans are connected together if it's a single structure and then what you're talking about in the in the claims both in the claims and in the specification is points of cam action as opposed to individual it does mention interconnected cams at that point but brief description of the drawings figure to do a good deal of strictly alternative use of interconnect it can with physically separate contact point responsible structures may be implemented using any member or combination of elements operative to provide distinct stages of cooperation with the bust area surface of the sapir your post and  so when you combine them into the figure to arrangements of the patent you have a a single cam structure with multiple points of cam action that's what the and so if we and if we if you turn to the prosecution history there's nothing in the prosecution history that requires the claims to have two or more camps the clear unambiguous language of the cl is used in a general sense to introduce the specific geometry that's claimed after that and if you look for example at the brief description of drawings it says figure one is a drawing which file whether it's just a single camera going against the theory or surface that's correct a single individual can but that's not what we're claiming in separately or together and then it explains what those various points of cam action do as the knee moves from extension to fluxion and then down below the points of cam action may be implemented using any member or combination of elements operative to provide distinct stages of cooperation with the plus terrier aspect of the superior post so it is not limiting itself to individual cans  specification supports the idea that you can have a unitary can structure that has individual points of can action and that's what's claimed in point nine i claim claim one is a very different claim in the sense that it's a static picture of of the cam at at or before ninety degrees of flexion and the it climbs a different aspect of the invention the geometric shape of that cam and figure to the it has a convex surface i want to move on to the issues the nd issue that the district court held that the points of cam  despair for the lower court to do so in the eye fiar in the i p r we didn't argue that the points of cam action distinguish over the prior because their convex the i p r panel construed claim nine without any shape limitation so would have been impossible to distinguish over the prior art on the basis of cam shape and said we successfully argued that the the district courts related to what the judge and unless i'm mistaken and maybe i'm just confused by the different playing here in the different paths but my understanding is the district court relied on the fact that during the that is that is correct that's what we said but that was that's the implementation that's not the invention that's not what is claimed wasn't there isn't going to wasn't there a different point is no response where the patent owners said characterized quote unquote the disclosed and claimed invention and quote as having convex cam action surfaces know that there were two one of them had to do with the implementation and the other one had to do with what the invention what's and where it talked about the invention it didn't say anything about the shape of the cam it was only in the implementation statement where we mentioned court let me start with the answer to judge wallach's question about the interior kind of hard to see the interior portion of the attune camp of the convex portion of the two g m that there is no evidence at all that that convex portion contacts the post and supplementing honour's the specification of the patents and suit makes it clear and unmistakable that single cam designs on the problem and the invention is having multiple cams acting on the push to your side of the post multiple cams are the more than one points of cam action as the name moves from extension to flexion both sides agree that these terms required construction construction and the specification makes clear that in both cases the claim terms  mad idea relied on the title for construction of the multiple points of camp action limitation consistent with the title the common specification of the two patterns is focused entirely on the use of more than one cam acting post so that was their characterization of what the specification conveyed and that's what is sent in the i p r which is part of the intrinsic record after criticizing single cam designs the speci met idea are you that this very statement and i'm quoting conveys to one skilled in the yard what is and what is not the disclosed and claimed invention and that's at appendix page  invention has multiple cams contacting the post the prosecution history also establishes that the use of multiple cam members on the poster your surface was the reason for allowance of the four to six claims that said carrier surface of the post and if that were not enough the p to have agreed with that idea that these statements limited the claimed invention much more intrinsic evidence and x does exist evidence of cited in our pr claim construction whether it's by disavow whether it's by philip klein construction whether it's by prosecution history disclaimer or even judicial stoppel whether it's simon whether it's philips whether it's abit diabetes whether it's personalized medicine any of the relevant case law in this area looks at what all dictate the said zack's in construction that judge the ro arrived at dieppe you does not have multiple cams it has a single cam you can look at the picture in our brief and see that there is no doubt about this summary judgment is appropriate in this product there are in fact two convex portions of the accused product one of them contacts the post there's also a concave portion of the product the contacts   what was called the anterior convex portion may not contact the post also with respect to the idea that somehow we gave up some  construction or we gave up a particular infringement contention we as a the lower court did not decide that we had done a thing wrong with amending  contentions and so they were accepted we were never put in a position where we actually gave up something at this point other than by  changing our own frenchmen contentions within the within the timeframe that the court allowed us to do that