I'd argue it's not. (But I still believe the patents other claims, and as a whole was obviously violated.)
You can't go of of the language of today to judge the claim. After all, the Wright brothers use "flying machine" to describe what we call an "airplane", and the term "aeroplane" to describe what we call a "wing".
Remember, the method and implementation is what's patentable, not the concept.
It doesn't really matter if we'd call a warped wing an aileron or not, or that it accomplishes the same objective.
It only matters how the implementation of the invention is described, and what elements are claimed (and in what combinations).