talks about how the steering controls may be mounted on a suspended platform implying they don't have to be but then more importantly a little bit lower at nine fifty one the patent says the operator platform supports and entire body of the operator now there is no no in the picture the operator platform is seventy which includes the mechanism for the foot rest and  why then is it your view that the steering controls must be construed as part of the operator platform directly contrary to the teaching of the specification sure so there's two points in response to that one is the i agree with you that the operator from the steering control separate much like the sea to separate or the foot rest are separate all those are separate elements that are pieces that would be manufactured on but as it relates to the question that this court has to decide today what is the construction of an entire body of an operator the only them in light of their utilization in the specification and the specification says the entire body of the operator is supported by the platform which by the way doesn't even include the c itself so when this patent talks about an entire body being supported every time in the specification it says the entire body is supported by the platform and the operator platform doesn't even include the seat much less the steering controls so why aren't i construed what the claim to me when it says something that will support an entire body by reference to the same words being used in the spec in multiple places sure is it there's a lot of very questions and i'll start with the question of considering support obviously the district court didn't construe the term support below the claim construction the the district court's construction if a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the entire body limitation in reference to how a person sits in an ordinary chair is an adoption of skaggs arguments that the entire but i don't see where the district court said an entire body doesn't include hands and arms the district courts construction had to mean that because the district court made a factual finding the platform does not support the writer's hands in ours wasn't that in the section of its opinion where it next paragraph skag counters fair enough that's an argument but then it starts to state the law that it's applying still in that paragraph while construction may not part limitations now it's talking about the law so the words are going to us markets are going to apply right which is not uncommon in fact one of my opinions i often say they argue they argue now here's the general long going to apply then i apply it to the facts of a given case and you want us to construe that single sentence c m watched in the middle of the discussion of all the arguments the parties are making before they can get to the general law that applies in the case as nonetheless a fact finding that that's a very experienced strange structure for the p d and for me to interpret that well then even court's fact finding with it doesn't matter if the platform supports the operator's hands and arms because it supports the torso in the feet that was it where did it where does he say it supports the feet and isn't that inconsistent with the thing you want me to construe as a fact finding and twelve where the district court as a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the entire body limitation in reference to my persons it's an ordinary chair i've never seen and ordinary chair that has a foot rest have you know  say what i think the ordinary chair construction has no support anywhere it came out of thin air it does not have any sport in that cat the cat doesn't talk about an ordinary chair it has no support any were and the reality is this isn't this isn't a case about it were very chair so ok so the ordinary chair has no support maybe you actually could garner agreement with that but i don't still understand how that gets you to a successful construction because the district court did look at these very sentences and and make the conclusion that this doesn't wait in this pattern it absolutely does not the word wait was not used by either party in the district before the district court the parties didn't ask i think you said the support was on it and wait the skag did not use the term weight in its briefing for the district court the three sixty nine is that the pattern was directed to an operator platform suspended from a chassis quote to protect the operator's entire body from vibrations and shockley woods skag responded that its proposed construction of an entire body of the operator which as i said focused solely on support of torso in feet quote this is on page a p p x four four two quote harmonizes with the four seven five casting sion over prior art devices featuring a suspension system for a seat but where the operator's feet are supported by the chassis and thus subject to additional vibration so both of the parties absolutely agreed before the district court that support meant isolate for chocolate that's the only way that the district court's opinion makes sense because it is reporting i get it the controls are mounted to the platform not the chassis which would mean that they are allowing vibrations to go to the operator part i don't wasn't looking for support of hands and arms it was only looking for support of feet and then if if a skag argues support means to support the weight a there is absolutely no factual evidence in the record that the controls don't support the operators the weight of the operator's arms and in fact these motors these even the way that they work if you push controls forward to move forward you push controls back to the back there like they're there if you see these people running and they're getting a description of a frame supporting the more depth there is also a description as your honor pointed out of an operator platform supporting the body of the operator on the contrary when you're talking about isolating from  pattern is very clear when it's having conversations about that this is also reflected in carried over into the claims themselves for example in the claims edition for example claims eleven and fourteen there is a claim require men that the chassis supports a drive train and later in the flame it says the operator platform supports the entire body of the operator now if you were to accept argument that support means isolated and that that interpretation of support is isolating from vibration would also have to carry over to the claim limitation where the chassis is supporting the drive train now that that makes no mention that the drive train has to be isolated from vibration with respect to the one and in contrast for example if you look at claim five it talks about a configuration to reduce transmission is a vibrant cooperations between two components so the pattern is very explicit when it's talking about isolating from vibration and it also uses the word support in the conventional sense when one component is supporting the weight of another component so this patent the court should not construe support as meaning isolated from vibrations are two separate concepts the pattern deals with those two concepts separately and the claims also delineate between those two concept  you know as opposed to sitting in a compartment in a car of a regular vehicle so it's more a sense of you know you're riding a bike riding in a car you know you're not riding in a riding article i'd like to ask you about the anticipation the district courts a few and feel a bit cryptic or underdeveloped to me so what what is it that you understand about why you would characterize the court the district court's decision is under developed i would like to point out that argument was very underdeveloped on the record they didn't introduce any declarations from either technical experts or fact expert support of their inability arguments they actually only had about six pages or six pages six paragraphs of argument but getting back to her question so getting back to her question i think when you look at the henrickson reference and again when you're claims what element of an operator platform does the driver's box fail to contain or why is it different you can tell me it is factual findings but a factual reading that has no basis is not supportable so tell me what the basis operator platform to the front portion of the chassis and connecting the rear portion of the operator platform to the rear portion of the chassis so the linkage must connect from a portion of the operator platform to the front portion of the chassis and the rear portion of the operator question to refer to the tradition for hell you just pointed me tell horrible that there was some deficiency in hendrix and as to how various elements interact with each other the district court held precisely an operator platform one layer when you add walls and no ceiling it's no longer platform is that what you're arguing well again well when you look at it when you look at the claims you claim eleven and claim fourteen because the question of scope would be important to be decided by the district court why that is i don't understand the argument sounded perfectly reasonable to me and injunction is warranted if any claim of a patent is valid and scope of the injunction has to be directed to the claims and certainly our toro would be in a position where it could potentially provide machines that would not infringe claims eleven in fourteen but would not run afoul of an injunction it was directed only to cl