1 of the ’465 patent by any of the three accused hangers concerns the claim recitations 1) that the tongues and openings are “formed between said upper walls of said locking members and main bar, respectively,” and 2) that the tongues are “offset to underlie the edges of the openings.” This language clearly applies literally only to a hanger bar in which the tongues are formed on the locking cap and extend downwardly through openings in the main bar, and not the reverse arrangement employed in defendants’ accused hanger bars, in which the tongues are formed on the main bar and extend upwardly through openings in the locking cap. However, this reversal of parts does not affect the locking action. In both constructions, the tongues and openings cooperate to perform the same function (<HOLDING>) in substantially the same way (by engagement
holding that relative to the threat that she posed physically separating tina cortez from her telephone taking her by the arm  escorting her from her home taking the keys to her home and locking the door and  placing her in the locked back seat of a patrol car was excessive force as well as an unlawful seizure under the fourth amendment holding that a victims statement to her sister that she had been raped was an excited utterance when between the time of the assault and her making the statement the victim dressed herself and walked down the stairs holding that timeliness of section 301 hybrid claim against union is measured from the date the internal union appeals procedure is exhausted or broken down holding that the timeliness of the employees suit is measured from the later of the date the employee knew or should have known of the employers final action or the date the union appeals procedure is exhausted or otherwise broken down to the employees disadvantage holding down the locking cap