performance” when responding to Questions 4, 5a, and 5b, especially given that Bissell has not pointed to -any evidence suggesting that Participants* did not understand the term “HEPA level performance” to be a proxy for the CleanView Claims. In the context of the Survey, the use of the term, “HEPA level performance” was proper. In addition, as mentioned above, the purpose of the Survey was not to have Participants establish the meaning of the term “HEPA level filter,’.’ but rather to determine whether consumers thought-the CleanView Claims applied to the vacuum cleaner as a whole or solely to the filter. (Kivetz Dep. 367-368); (Kivetz Rep. Par. 11). Thus, the case cited by Bissell, Mead Johnson & Co. v. Abbott Laboratories, 201 F.3d 883 (7th Cir.2000), is inapposite. See id. at 887 (<HOLDING>). Based .on the above, the Survey Questions do
holding that the district court committed error by using the invention to define the problem that the invention solves holding that the possibility of a mistaken understanding of the phrase preponderance of the evidence on the part of the jury is too remote to constitute plain error when counsel gave the jury an accurate explanation of the legal meaning of the phrase in his closing argument and that meaning is consistent with the common understanding of the words in the phrase holding that a reviewing court must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error holding that the phrase or ganic diseases of the nervous system contained in 38 usc  11013 was ambiguous because the statute did not define the phrase holding that the district court committed legal error by using a survey to define the meaning of a phrase  and then insisting that verification meet the standards thus established