are correct in any of the three constructions that we would have to affirm yes you have to show that all three were wrong yes pretty well there is a common thread that was through each of the three iranians claim constructions in each instance the court improperly imported restrictions into the claim language from the description of the preferred bod a wall under the court's definition depends entirely on the orientation of the basket if i may if i may use one of the directors and we have here as an example in  orientation what was the wall no longer is the wall what was not the wall suddenly becomes the wall that there is nothing in the law which of to restrict the definition of wall to the shape orientation of the structure what about the common sense impact of gravity whether whether something is moving fast growth up and down ha baskets when it elevates the wound and whether it enters at the bottom or the side is really irrelevant to the claimed filtering function that that's covered by the patent if you look at at the what the inventor was trying to invent the context of the invention here the inventor was looking for a basket filter that would solve a problem the problem being large blue sped filters that previously were very difficult to maintain and clean the concept of the patent is to provide a basket type modular filter that could be easily removed and maintained that there is no basis within the context of that invention to restrict the your we believe that the term is sufficiently broad we believe that the term wall should be defined as the structure that forms the basket to contain the space form here it within the bas it yes and it would be covered by the plain language of the patent or that that's the part that may be a little clearer well that again that the little we know of that baskets take diagram which simply suggest shows that whether or not a basket has a wall under the porch definition depends entirely on whether you put the structure upright on its side and i believe that it in of itself is an and reasonable definition given that that circumstance ok let's talk about the second claim element that's at issue here which is communication to mean bringing into existence or causing a stream of fluid without any interruptions breaking the stream into unconnected segments notice what's missing there and he temporal element that definition does not provide that the can up that the uninterrupted stream of fluid must exist throughout the entire duration of the treatment process but when the court got to applying plant construction to the accused device it introduced a temporal limitation it stated that the pattern peaches a method quote that allows for continuous fluid communication quote even when the filter is only partially full of stormwater yes it does teach that but it doesn't limit it to that there is nothing in the language of the cla that that places any sort of temporal limitation on wind a continuous fluid communication must exist notice the language of the clanked it talks about the step which it continuous fluid communication it's not limited to establishing at the beginning at the middle or at the n we have in our brief diagrams of the if used device that showed that there is continuous fluid communication in the interior drainage space during the normal operation and during the siphon operation of this particular device i see god in my view both time i want to just mention very briefly the concept of siphoning the district court again imposed a limitation that's not contained in the language the court said that a true siphon is one in which water flows over an intermediate elevation and is nothing in the language of the a of the patent to suggest with the requisite clarity determination and specificity that the inventor intended to redefine the word exactly what the bay filter product product does it it creates a negative pressure inside and pulls the water in that case up over an intermediate elevation but again out there the district judges construction of words in this patent had to be correct it seems like normally we look at this patent hichens group words that are in the claim that may be ambiguous word and we look at said show me where in nine your brief i want to see it in a prosecution you repeatedly tell me that the district court found they had with dad wish that issue's been established it's been proven he made a finding the district court in this case made no such thing he suggested that there was evidence introduced to put the issue of bad faith into question and therefore summary judgment was not appropriate when that basis but you don't say that throughout your entire brief never once you allege anything to that you tell me no less than five times that he made a finding of bad faith in this case and i found that to be very troubling and we have to limit ourself to the examiner to work not your extension of the exam or the earth so your argument is that the examiner has already decided that if you and we can see it decision by reading at work we can't add  indicated which are the elements which say that the i'm looking at i think the more than half of the upper plains which changed after this rejection more than ha amendment result in them giving up anything except what comes in and goes down because in order to establish continuous loop communication which is not in robertson which is what the amended claims were you need water that flows it's virtually unrecognizable from the first versions of this one why should i focus in one that in fact i think will change as the one and only distinction over robertson now they are forever for close from entitle meant to anything was a change made to put a talking about rock and pollutants there was a claim for a change to part b treating the runoff water there was a claim another change to part b to an interior to the grain of space there was a change to see if the average improved communication between the interior which is what you're talking about andy was memory but i don't think you disagree with it i think though that you want to say they redefined it and they're only entitle to this and then they know we redefined it and expanded it to include negative pressure net when negative effects are powers water and s you your view is big changed it all together they no longer get the ordinary meaning fake only get the preferred in body image description and their view with no we simply expanded the clear meaning of the word so how do we contend with that of the word that you have to show something in your spec that says we are including the normal meaning the old me of for there's nothing in the past that would even begin to suggest that it has anything like the real meaning of  but there's nothing in the pattern that would begin to suggest the disemboweled the clear meaning of the words i mean so many really what we're supposed to look at aren't we when we take a word say you're no longer entitled to the ordinary meaning of the word don't you have the burden of proving you think it's the negative pressure of the falling column of water drawn by gravity ok all right thank you thank you lou we'll take the