yes good morning your honor it's made please the court the district court in that stat in this case applied the wrong methodology while citing the right one to get the wrong result in this case it misapplied the clear direction of philips and its  and started it ended with the most narrow definitions for the words prevent and lock in general purpose dictionaries if time permits i'll address two issues in my argument the first is that the court incorrectly are listed as including figures three and figure four there was an election requirement by the patent office and figure three was the chosen embodiment but that does not change the language in the specification that clearly describes figures four and figures three as being covered by the terms of attach in a locking fashion and this would be in on page  five eight of the patent column three lines fifty two exemplary embodiments and that includes both figures three and figures four so even if figure four is not an e for you you have a situation where you imagine you're going on purpose now your argument by the applicant was all this is cosmetic right meaning it doesn't it's extra right but we know that's not true dispositive are the language that you would quoted lines forty nine and fifty but also many of the dependent claims it is clear from the prosecution history that what the patent attorney did is any time there or one bit where is it one part and or a plurality of parts it was crossed out so while this court might criticize his grammar i think that the files of history shows what the path and the patent lawyer was but i don't believe there's anything in the m p e p but it was a feeling then and i believe it's a feeling now among many m p s what to do with the public notice function of the coin what's the competition supposed to  maybe if we write an opinion saying oh well this is a case just like super glad that we come out different if superguy had announced a general rule in all cases and did not have the statement that we also need to look at the but claims eight and nine in this case would tell the competitor that the own weight not after the event they were before the and then that they tell you exactly what claim the rulings but claim that none were still allowed after the amendment and they did say language mean at least if i was something and so if i were explaining it to a college student i would say if you wanted it to be both a and b you'd say both a and b if you wanted just one of a think the history here and the specification leads me to to disagree with that interpretation because i want to in the specific to show that the first the first thing in the specification would be the language which you would suspect because of the fact that the claim was amended to take that language how exactly but it was amended in such a way and the cross out at least consistently through all of the changes made no showed that show one what it shows is what the grammar of the past and the patent lawyer was using because it would be for if for instance in claim seven in of parts it couldn't be both so it wasn't one of one category and one of the other and similarly the fact that eight and nine were left in there and seemed to be understood by the examiner and certainly understood by the p of springs that are fixed by being locked to or to bundle to prevent relative movement between springs in the two bundle as a consequence the springs are able to move relative to the housing and to move back stretched to cover this particular the rights if you'd like me to move on and not give them our first i'd be happy to so the claims are being stretched to try to cover the border device in which french clips are not attached to the two bundle in any us right into the prevent language and what was meant by the word prevention in the within the context of plain ones when one has a limitation that places the springs are attached by at least one o and the at least one kind of come together as one god i believe that's correct or ok why don't we you address some of the points judge club there was making obviously he was arguing with your friend on the other side but tell me why even if there's some ambiguity in east one and not one person or we can look to the dependent claims to get absolute certainty as to what we're talking about here obliterated the need for the least one language then doesn't that like if if if what if your construction is correct why would you even need what what role does the at least one designed in and moved me to actually overcome the problems with the clean invention of the civic all of the testimony from the lead engineer and he has even admitted in one of the coding filings with the district court  drawing and based on that but based on the drawing the figure four but more importantly the evidence of the experts of both on both sides is that attached in a locking fashion does not necessarily mean no movement whatsoever the district court went right to the most narrow definition in the dictionary and the most narrow real life example that that you could find while the those in the field yes i agree they are inventors but the other place you can look is the patent application non litigation application of borg warner which used the term prevent movement affixed and clam d it into some of the record that we showed that showed even when there is that minimal amount of movement one of skill in the art still refers to it as prevent patent they're both apparently looking to the same problem and the difference between claim one and claim fifteen is a claim one attaches the spring in a locking fashion to the grid like structure while in claim is to prevent movement it is attached to the tube to prevent relative movement there between so we can have we could we do say that and claim fifteen prevent means prevent it but positively locking you have