[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:06] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:07] Speaker 01:
It may please the Court.

[00:00:08] Speaker 01:
This appeal arises from the District Court's erroneous grant of summary judgment of non-infringement that was premised on a series of errors, beginning with its faulty claim construction arising out of the fact that it failed to follow all of the well-established long-standing canons announced by this Court over and over again.

[00:00:28] Speaker 01:
and culminating in the fact that the district court was essentially forced to make findings and facts about the structure of the accused products in the case because the defendant appellee admittedly in the red brief and deliberately chose not to submit any findings or any statements of material fact regarding that structure.

[00:00:57] Speaker 01:
As a result, the district court had no choice but to look at photographs.

[00:01:02] Speaker 00:
The primary issue you have to persuade us of is that there's an error in the claim construction.

[00:01:07] Speaker 00:
If there's an error in the claim construction, it as likely as not requires a remand to redo it in light of a correct claim construction.

[00:01:16] Speaker 00:
So can you talk about the claim construction?

[00:01:18] Speaker 01:
Sure.

[00:01:18] Speaker 01:
The claim construction, the district court made two fundamental errors.

[00:01:23] Speaker 01:
First, the district court

[00:01:26] Speaker 01:
essentially ignored the plain language of the claim and decided that it needed to define the single claim term at issue, the receptacle adapter, based on a combination of the two independent claims and importing its own understanding of the disclosed embodiments.

[00:01:45] Speaker 01:
There were five disclosed embodiments.

[00:01:47] Speaker 01:
The district court looked at those as essentially definitional.

[00:01:51] Speaker 01:
It identified

[00:01:53] Speaker 01:
what it refers to as four elements that it found to be required to meet the receptacle adapter element of the claim.

[00:02:03] Speaker 01:
The first one that the receptacle adapter had to be located substantially at the bottom of the track.

[00:02:11] Speaker 00:
So I think I understand the point that there are actual differences, substantive differences, between claim 1 and 13 and the district court sort of, I don't know,

[00:02:24] Speaker 00:
treated them as if they were all the same.

[00:02:26] Speaker 00:
Put that aside.

[00:02:27] Speaker 00:
Ultimately, the district court found non-infringement on the adapter term, which is common to the things.

[00:02:36] Speaker 00:
One doesn't have to be at the bottom.

[00:02:37] Speaker 00:
The other one does have to be at the bottom.

[00:02:39] Speaker 00:
One requires a receptacle.

[00:02:41] Speaker 00:
The other doesn't actually require the receptacle.

[00:02:43] Speaker 00:
But just on the adapter question, why is the district court wrong about the interpretation of the adapter term?

[00:02:51] Speaker 01:
If you look at the language of the claims, both claims 13 and claims 1 effectively define what the receptacle adapter is in the same basic terms.

[00:03:02] Speaker 01:
Claim 1 refers to it basically as a structure that is configured to receive a receptacle.

[00:03:08] Speaker 01:
Claim 13 defines it as a structure that is adapted to receive at least one.

[00:03:13] Speaker 03:
Okay, but that would seem not to be in keeping with the general dictionary definition of what an adapter is.

[00:03:20] Speaker 03:
It's something that helps to join two pieces together.

[00:03:23] Speaker 03:
So to the extent that the district court found that there had to be some retention feature that's consistent with the ordinary meaning of adapter, right?

[00:03:36] Speaker 01:
Not necessarily.

[00:03:37] Speaker 01:
I think what you described initially as an adapter, according to the common dictionary definition, is something that is assist in the process of joining two pieces together.

[00:03:48] Speaker 01:
The receptacle adapter has to assist in that process.

[00:03:51] Speaker 01:
It does not have to be

[00:03:53] Speaker 01:
the part that attaches the two pieces together.

[00:03:58] Speaker 01:
I can envision, for example, an embodiment of the patent where the receptacle adapter is sort of a guide by which the receptacle is placed under or at the side of the body of the trap, but the actual attachment is done by the use of

[00:04:17] Speaker 01:
separate screws on the side of the receptacle into the body.

[00:04:21] Speaker 03:
Okay, but in the specification, there is no embodiment where this board with the hole in it does nothing more than allow the insertion of the receptacle.

[00:04:38] Speaker 01:
There is no embodiment there.

[00:04:39] Speaker 01:
There are basically, of the five embodiments, there are basically two different variations.

[00:04:45] Speaker 01:
where the receptacle adapter, referred to in badly worded specification as a receptacle adapter coupling, is essentially a threaded cap.

[00:04:56] Speaker 03:
Yeah, and the other one is the friction.

[00:04:58] Speaker 01:
And the other one is a friction fit.

[00:05:00] Speaker 00:
But.

[00:05:01] Speaker 00:
Just to speak, is the friction fit something other than the hole itself in the underboard?

[00:05:10] Speaker 00:
Let's just assume this is all underneath.

[00:05:14] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:05:14] Speaker 00:
the rim of the receptacle, or is there a third piece involved in a friction fit?

[00:05:23] Speaker 01:
There need not be a third piece involved in a friction fit.

[00:05:25] Speaker 01:
I mean, the standard definition of a friction fit in mechanical engineering parlance, there could be a third element.

[00:05:32] Speaker 01:
There could be an adhesive, for example, or there could be some sort of another.

[00:05:38] Speaker 00:
But if it's light enough, it may just be that the receptacle is light enough.

[00:05:42] Speaker 00:
just the tightness.

[00:05:43] Speaker 00:
It could be the tightness.

[00:05:44] Speaker 00:
Maybe you may not need a third piece and therefore if that's right then the, at least the kind of the ordinary immediate to bring to mind notion of an adapter as a third component doesn't seem to be required at least by what's described in the spec.

[00:06:02] Speaker 01:
No, in fact the embodiments and specification that discuss the friction fit, the friction fit

[00:06:11] Speaker 01:
receptacle adapter don't have a third piece.

[00:06:14] Speaker 01:
In fact, that is why the district court rejected the Best Be Brothers proposed construction.

[00:06:20] Speaker 01:
Their proposed construction was that there had to be a separate piece.

[00:06:24] Speaker 01:
that would read out those embodiments and would read out several of the claims, depending on claims 1 and 13.

[00:06:31] Speaker 03:
Okay, but your construction doesn't require anything in the whole that helps to retain the receptacle, right?

[00:06:39] Speaker 01:
It does not.

[00:06:40] Speaker 03:
That seems to me to be a bit of a problem, both in terms of the ordinary definition of something that helps to join,

[00:06:47] Speaker 03:
and also in terms of the abutments in the specification, none of which is a simple hole that allows the receptacle to fit in there.

[00:06:57] Speaker 01:
No, that's correct, Your Honor.

[00:06:59] Speaker 01:
The abutments in the specification do also perform that separate step of retaining the receptacle.

[00:07:09] Speaker 00:
that's different from the answer you just gave to me.

[00:07:12] Speaker 00:
I thought one of the spec examples, the friction fit example, is precisely the board with a hole and the receptacle top is tight enough that it holds no third part.

[00:07:28] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:07:29] Speaker 01:
And I didn't mean to deviate from that.

[00:07:31] Speaker 03:
The question I had asked you was, doesn't it have to perform some retaining function?

[00:07:38] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:07:39] Speaker 03:
as it does in the friction fit, but in the accused devices, the hole allegedly is not performing any retaining function at all.

[00:07:51] Speaker 03:
The retaining function is with respect to tabs on the receptor.

[00:07:56] Speaker 01:
Well, setting aside the second part of your question for now, whether or not the accused devices have some sort of a retaining element within the holes,

[00:08:08] Speaker 01:
You're absolutely correct that the embodiments disclosed in the patent, the five embodiments, whether it's a friction fit or it's a separate coupling device, those all do perform that separate retention function.

[00:08:22] Speaker 01:
However, the language of the claim, and the district court acknowledged that the dictionary definitions don't get you all the way there because there is no common, understood use of receptacle adapter.

[00:08:34] Speaker 01:
I think the district court says if this was ever used in the common parlance, I have no idea what it meant.

[00:08:39] Speaker 01:
But while adapter, the common dictionary definition of adapter generally means or embodies some element of joining, the language of the claim specifically defines receptacle adapter as merely receiving.

[00:08:54] Speaker 01:
It doesn't include that separate function.

[00:08:57] Speaker 01:
There are dependent claims that incorporate that separate retaining function.

[00:09:01] Speaker 00:
Correct your question.

[00:09:02] Speaker 00:
So is your claim construction that this receptacle adapter is any component that

[00:09:08] Speaker 00:
performs the function of retaining the receptacle.

[00:09:14] Speaker 01:
Receiving the receptacle.

[00:09:15] Speaker 01:
Receiving the receptacle.

[00:09:16] Speaker 00:
Our construction.

[00:09:17] Speaker 00:
Why would that not make this into a means plus function claim?

[00:09:22] Speaker 00:
I know nobody has argued this, but the more you drain any meaning except the function out of this term, the more it sounds like a nonce word.

[00:09:34] Speaker 00:
even not one of the usual non-swords like means, but still, if you're draining all the meaning out so that anything that performs the function will do, why should this not be a 112f claim?

[00:09:48] Speaker 01:
Well, essentially, even if we say that part of the function is retention, you can make that same argument.

[00:09:55] Speaker 01:
We believe that the way it was worded and the way it was intended to be was simply to use the language of the claim to define what a reciprocal adapter is.

[00:10:04] Speaker 01:
Again, it's not the perfectly worded claim.

[00:10:08] Speaker 01:
And it does rely on functionality as one of the components for defining that as a structure to receive.

[00:10:15] Speaker 00:
But if I were to think that, based on the arguments being made, this is a means plus function claim, what would I do with this appeal?

[00:10:29] Speaker 00:
Nobody has argued that.

[00:10:31] Speaker 00:
And the district court didn't adopt it.

[00:10:35] Speaker 00:
If I thought this really was a 112f means plus function claim, would I remand?

[00:10:43] Speaker 01:
I think even as a 112f means plus function element, this still has to be remanded because either

[00:10:52] Speaker 01:
two reasons.

[00:10:53] Speaker 01:
First, that's not how the court construed it.

[00:10:55] Speaker 01:
So the District Court's construction still does not apply.

[00:10:57] Speaker 00:
You would then have to look to see whether the accused products are any of the item-corresponding structures or their equivalents.

[00:11:04] Speaker 01:
Right, and getting to Judge Dunn's second heart to his question before, we believe that those accused structures

[00:11:12] Speaker 01:
do have receptacle adapters that do perform both the functions of receiving and retaining, but there was nothing in the record that shows that.

[00:11:20] Speaker 03:
Yeah, let me just try to clarify that, because as I read your brief, you're suggesting that summary apart from the claim construction, even if the claim construction requires that the

[00:11:32] Speaker 03:
bottom board performer retaining function, you say this is a genuine issue of material fact because in fact the accused products may function by friction fit to some extent at least, right?

[00:11:45] Speaker 03:
Correct, Your Honor.

[00:11:46] Speaker 03:
And so I guess I'm a little puzzled as to where we are on the question of undisputed facts because if I read the memorandum

[00:11:56] Speaker 03:
that was submitted by the defendants and that the district court describes how the accused products work and it's all has to do with the tabs and they say it's retained by the presence of these tabs and in your response to that you don't seem to dispute that so are we in a situation where we can assume that friction fit is not involved in the accused products or where are

[00:12:24] Speaker 01:
The submissions to the district court on the motion for summary judgment and the citations of the district court to those submissions are all to attorney argument.

[00:12:36] Speaker 01:
There's nothing in the record.

[00:12:37] Speaker 01:
There are no undisputed material facts regarding

[00:12:40] Speaker 01:
how those stops function.

[00:12:42] Speaker 03:
Well, I understand that the district court didn't analyze that, but we're, I mean, it's a noble review, and we can look at what the record is.

[00:12:51] Speaker 03:
So what I'm really asking, is there a dispute of material fact as to whether the accused product functioned by friction fit?

[00:12:58] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor, there is.

[00:12:59] Speaker 01:
We believe that the way that those particular products, the receptacle portions of those products, are structured relative to the holes that are in those traps,

[00:13:09] Speaker 01:
There is a friction component.

[00:13:11] Speaker 01:
In fact, even without those tabs in there, I believe that you still have to pinch the device to get it out, which suggests that there's a friction element in there.

[00:13:23] Speaker 01:
I'm more into my rebuttal time.

[00:13:25] Speaker 01:
Further questions?

[00:13:25] Speaker 01:
There are no further questions.

[00:13:29] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:13:29] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:13:29] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:13:30] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Mr. Ciccioli.

[00:13:30] Speaker 03:
We'll give you two minutes for rebuttal.

[00:13:34] Speaker 03:
Mr. Boyle?

[00:13:35] Speaker 04:
Good morning.

[00:13:35] Speaker 04:
James Boyle from Milwaukee.

[00:13:41] Speaker 04:
Honestly, it's tempting to almost say nothing.

[00:13:46] Speaker 04:
But you gentlemen record all these things and our clients want to hear stuff, so.

[00:13:52] Speaker 00:
Some of us might want to hear some stuff too.

[00:13:55] Speaker 04:
Friction.

[00:13:55] Speaker 02:
Friction.

[00:13:56] Speaker 02:
I mean, why didn't the district court air here?

[00:13:58] Speaker 02:
It seems like he limited the claim construction to the proposed embodiments, and that's inconsistent with our precedent right off the bat.

[00:14:08] Speaker 04:
Oh, I disagree.

[00:14:09] Speaker 04:
I think he looked at the

[00:14:10] Speaker 04:
words of the claim.

[00:14:12] Speaker 04:
And I think he gave it a broader interpretation than it's really due.

[00:14:16] Speaker 04:
I mean, the words mean something.

[00:14:19] Speaker 04:
Stepping back for a second about this idea whether it's friction-fed, that was never disputed or argued ever by anybody.

[00:14:27] Speaker 04:
There was no dispute.

[00:14:29] Speaker 04:
The plaintiff never disputed any of the facts that were presented.

[00:14:32] Speaker 02:
And as far as... Well, could you address the claim construction issue?

[00:14:36] Speaker 02:
I mean, that's at the heart of this case, whether there's facts supporting his argument

[00:14:41] Speaker 02:
after we get to the right claim instructions is a different question.

[00:14:44] Speaker 02:
But it seems to me, even though you disagree, apparently, that the district court has limited those two embodiments, it seems exactly what he did.

[00:14:54] Speaker 02:
So why isn't that what he did?

[00:14:57] Speaker 04:
I think he looked at exactly what the words of those claims mean, what the word adapter means, and he looked at how it's described

[00:15:06] Speaker 04:
in the specification.

[00:15:07] Speaker 04:
That's what I think you're supposed to do.

[00:15:10] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:15:10] Speaker 03:
I think Judge Hughes is correct that the district court seemed to define the claim in terms of the embodiments, which is not correct.

[00:15:20] Speaker 03:
But the question is whether a somewhat similar construction, that is to say that the bottom panel has to perform a retention function

[00:15:29] Speaker 03:
and that the specification is giving examples of the retention function of the screw embodiment, the friction fit embodiment, is a somewhat different claim construction, but is that the correct claim construction that the district court is wrong?

[00:15:50] Speaker 04:
I think the district court got it exactly right.

[00:15:52] Speaker 04:
All these traps have

[00:15:58] Speaker 03:
Let's assume the district court got it wrong by confining the claim construction to the preferred environments.

[00:16:05] Speaker 03:
What is the correct claim construction?

[00:16:07] Speaker 03:
Does it require some retention function to be performed by the bottom panel?

[00:16:16] Speaker 04:
I think the adapter is a device that functions to connect two different parts.

[00:16:25] Speaker 04:
It is, as you referred to,

[00:16:27] Speaker 04:
It should be a third thing, a separate thing.

[00:16:31] Speaker 03:
But that's not consistent with the specification.

[00:16:34] Speaker 03:
It's not consistent with the friction fit and volume.

[00:16:37] Speaker 02:
I would say that's an even narrower construction than the district court did, requiring a third device.

[00:16:49] Speaker 02:
So let's assume that's wrong, too.

[00:16:51] Speaker 02:
We're not adopting your proposed even more narrow construction.

[00:16:56] Speaker 04:
I think he gave a rather broad construction.

[00:17:02] Speaker 04:
I guess I don't understand the point.

[00:17:07] Speaker 04:
I think this is simple.

[00:17:09] Speaker 03:
We're telling you that the claim constructions offered by both parties probably are wrong, and that the district court's claim construction was probably wrong.

[00:17:21] Speaker 03:
So we're asking you to help us as to what the correct claim construction is.

[00:17:31] Speaker 04:
I think it has to be a separate thing that connects two parts.

[00:17:35] Speaker 04:
That's what I think is the correct interpretation of it.

[00:17:38] Speaker 02:
And you don't have a backup argument if you lose on that?

[00:17:42] Speaker 02:
Because you're going to lose on that.

[00:17:45] Speaker 02:
Because it reads out preferred embodiments, which is contrary to

[00:17:50] Speaker 02:
general principles of claim construction.

[00:17:52] Speaker 04:
I don't think preferred embodiments can ignore that.

[00:17:55] Speaker 02:
No, no, no.

[00:17:55] Speaker 02:
I want to hear about this claim construction.

[00:17:58] Speaker 02:
Do you have a backup claim construction if your separate receptacle adapter third piece is not adopted by us?

[00:18:07] Speaker 04:
Well, it has to be a thing that physically retains the receptacle to the body of the trap.

[00:18:15] Speaker 04:
It has to be something.

[00:18:16] Speaker 04:
It can't be nothing.

[00:18:19] Speaker 04:
All traps have two parts, except fly paper.

[00:18:24] Speaker 04:
There's something in which the bug goes in and there's something in which the bug gets trapped.

[00:18:29] Speaker 04:
Well, they all have an opening of some sort, some passage.

[00:18:33] Speaker 04:
The plaintiff's invention is he took this device that has screws up on top so you can take a bottle and screw it on and screw it off.

[00:18:43] Speaker 04:
He somehow got a patent on it.

[00:18:45] Speaker 00:
You mean threads?

[00:18:47] Speaker 04:
Yeah, this is a threaded thing.

[00:18:49] Speaker 04:
I have one in my pocket as well.

[00:18:52] Speaker 00:
I hope it's empty.

[00:18:54] Speaker 04:
Yeah, it's a double threaded thing.

[00:18:58] Speaker 04:
You thread it up here, you can thread it in so you can take a bottle on and off.

[00:19:03] Speaker 04:
That's his invention, adding that extra piece so you can take a bottle, screw it on, screw it off.

[00:19:10] Speaker 04:
All traps have a component in which the bug comes in and a component where the bug gets trapped, so there's an opening here.

[00:19:17] Speaker 04:
by saying all that's required by the claim is merely an opening between those two things.

[00:19:23] Speaker 04:
Well, how is that an advancement over the prior art?

[00:19:27] Speaker 04:
Where does that?

[00:19:27] Speaker 04:
I don't get it.

[00:19:32] Speaker 04:
His invention is to add this adapter, which is a separate piece.

[00:19:36] Speaker 00:
Have you thought at all about this question that I raised?

[00:19:41] Speaker 00:
Admittedly, I think out of the blue about whether this might be viewed as a means-plus-function claim so that

[00:19:47] Speaker 00:
because the term adapter seems to not carry its dictionary meaning as a separate device, because that would be inconsistent with the spec.

[00:20:02] Speaker 00:
And the only thing being argued for it is that it perform a retention function that maybe this is a 112f means less function.

[00:20:14] Speaker 00:
claim and maybe that would require a remand for the particular inquiry, whether the accused products include the specification corresponding structure or their equivalents.

[00:20:34] Speaker 04:
Well, I think it's not a 112 because it's not in 112 format.

[00:20:38] Speaker 04:
But I made a point at some point in the brief or one

[00:20:42] Speaker 04:
If all that was required is an opening or any means for joining a receptacle to the body of the trap, well, then that's what the claim should have said, just adding a receptacle to the bottom of the trap or means for attaching a receptacle to the bottom of the trap.

[00:20:58] Speaker 04:
But it doesn't.

[00:20:59] Speaker 04:
It says a receptacle adapter.

[00:21:02] Speaker 04:
And those words have meaning.

[00:21:04] Speaker 04:
And those words have further explanation in the specification, which I pointed to.

[00:21:11] Speaker 04:
Those words have support.

[00:21:13] Speaker 03:
The prior art shows a bottom panel with a hole in it that can receive a receptacle.

[00:21:22] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:21:22] Speaker 03:
So that would seem to suggest that there has to be some retention function served to come within the invention to perform an adaptive function, right?

[00:21:37] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:21:42] Speaker 04:
For this patent, a way to attach it, a receptacle, a bottle, attach it, unattach it, attach it, unattach it, so you can replace it.

[00:21:54] Speaker 00:
Our guys don't make that.

[00:21:55] Speaker 00:
Can you just remind me what materials about the prior art were part of the claim construction and non-infringement summary judgment proceeding?

[00:22:10] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry, say that again?

[00:22:12] Speaker 00:
So if we're trying to understand this term, it certainly could be relevant to understand what the prior art taught and what this patent was seeking to do that was not in the prior art.

[00:22:28] Speaker 00:
Where do I look in the record for what this prior art is or for what the spec says it was?

[00:22:39] Speaker 00:
Was any prior art submitted?

[00:22:41] Speaker 00:
Did you make any prior art arguments in as part of the claim construction?

[00:22:47] Speaker 04:
I did, that the prosecution history and the prior art was consistent with the interpretation that I was proposing because the prior art did show a trap that had a body and had a receptacle and had a means for joining it.

[00:23:04] Speaker 04:
Interestingly,

[00:23:07] Speaker 04:
If you track that prosecution history, they distinguish their traps on the basis that the trap body is more closely resembles a natural nest specifically for carpenter bees.

[00:23:21] Speaker 04:
That's how they really got it over that prior art.

[00:23:24] Speaker 04:
That this trap is specific for carpenter bees where these other traps are just more insects, flying insects in general.

[00:23:33] Speaker 00:
retention aspect of the prior art may not actually have to be any different from this claim for this claim to overcome prior art.

[00:23:42] Speaker 04:
Well, the prior art did show a separate element for joining those two pieces and that's, I would say, is supportive of my interpretation why it has to be this separate art.

[00:23:54] Speaker 04:
It's certainly consistent.

[00:24:00] Speaker 03:
Okay, anything more?

[00:24:04] Speaker 04:
I really don't.

[00:24:08] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:24:10] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Mr. Boyle.

[00:24:10] Speaker 03:
Mr. Jacobi, you've got two minutes.

[00:24:19] Speaker 02:
Can you tell me clearly what you think the proper construction is?

[00:24:25] Speaker 01:
We believe that the construction that we submitted to the district court.

[00:24:28] Speaker 02:
No, no, just say it.

[00:24:29] Speaker 02:
Don't give me a lot of perfunctory.

[00:24:31] Speaker 02:
What is the

[00:24:32] Speaker 02:
The construction.

[00:24:33] Speaker 01:
A structure that is adapted or configured to receive a receptacle.

[00:24:38] Speaker 01:
Just a hole.

[00:24:39] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry?

[00:24:40] Speaker 01:
Just a hole.

[00:24:42] Speaker 01:
Not necessarily, but there will be a, because of the other limitations around receptacle adapter, the fact that it has to either be at the exit hole of the trap or on the bottom of the trap where the exit hole is, the hole becomes part of it.

[00:24:56] Speaker 01:
Ultimately, the receptacle adapter does not need to be the hole.

[00:25:03] Speaker 02:
I mean, it sounds like you're just saying a receptacle adapter is a receptacle adapter.

[00:25:09] Speaker 02:
You're defining it by just using the same words over again, but the problem with that I have is adapter

[00:25:17] Speaker 02:
generally does connote to me a separate structure, which clearly yours doesn't, because your embodiments don't necessarily require that.

[00:25:26] Speaker 02:
But what you're reciting to me is the claim construction doesn't give me any real understanding of how to define the claim either.

[00:25:34] Speaker 02:
It can't be plain meaning, because I think the plain meaning of adapter requires a separate structure.

[00:25:41] Speaker 02:
And then you're just defining it by saying the same words over again.

[00:25:48] Speaker 01:
The plain meaning in the context of the claims, the language that I just recited is the language of the claims.

[00:25:55] Speaker 02:
I know, that's my problem because it doesn't seem to me that when you use the word receptacle adapter that you meant the ordinary plain meaning because that would, at least when you use the term adapter, suggest that it's a separate piece.

[00:26:11] Speaker 02:
Adapters are usually a separate piece.

[00:26:14] Speaker 02:
But I agree with you that would read out one of the embodiments.

[00:26:17] Speaker 02:
So it seems to me you're suggesting that your patent, whether it's lexicography or just reading everything in context, has a different meaning for adapter.

[00:26:28] Speaker 02:
But you're not telling me what that different meaning is.

[00:26:31] Speaker 02:
You're just saying a receptacle adapter is something that's a receptacle adapter.

[00:26:37] Speaker 01:
Looking at the specification, it has to facilitate the function of receiving

[00:26:43] Speaker 01:
and retaining.

[00:26:44] Speaker 02:
The retaining is part of that in the sense that, in the sense that the language of the specification... A receptacle adapter is a structure, not necessarily separate, that is adapted to receive and retain the receptacle?

[00:27:02] Speaker 02:
Is that the construction you want, that a receptacle adapter is a structure that is adapted to receive and retain the receptacle?

[00:27:14] Speaker 01:
I believe that the language of specification requires that it... Can I get a yes or no?

[00:27:20] Speaker 02:
I know, answer yes or no and then tell me why that's irrelevant first.

[00:27:24] Speaker 02:
You don't want that or you do want that?

[00:27:26] Speaker 01:
I don't believe that that is as broad as what is intended, but I would accept that.

[00:27:32] Speaker 00:
And the part that you think is unduly narrowing is the retention piece, which you can't find in the claim language.

[00:27:39] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:27:39] Speaker 01:
Because the retention piece is not in the claim language, and where it's referred to in the specification is either in the context of the preferred embodiment

[00:27:48] Speaker 02:
where those embodiments do perform the... So what you want is a structure that is adapted to receive the receptacle.

[00:27:55] Speaker 01:
And to assist or facilitate the retention.

[00:27:59] Speaker 00:
The purpose of... Where do you get that?

[00:28:02] Speaker 01:
If you can't get the... The line of specification.

[00:28:03] Speaker 01:
The line of... The spec talks about that the receptacle adapter allows for the receiving and retaining.

[00:28:10] Speaker 03:
So retaining has to be part of the claim.

[00:28:13] Speaker 01:
Well, the example that I gave you before where the

[00:28:16] Speaker 01:
The structure is such that the receptacle adapter allows you to guide the receptacle in and then you attach it by use of screws holding it in.

[00:28:25] Speaker 01:
The receptacle adapter itself doesn't perform the retention, but the retention can't happen without the receptacle adapter.

[00:28:32] Speaker 01:
So in the broadest sense, your suggestion that it has to also retain, not just receive, is correct.

[00:28:41] Speaker 03:
Any further questions?

[00:28:43] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:28:44] Speaker 01:
Thank both counsel.

[00:28:45] Speaker 03:
The case is submitted.