[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
2018, 1886.

[00:00:51] Speaker 00:
Mr. Whitman, when you are ready.

[00:01:17] Speaker 01:
Robert Whitman for Appell and Shambon, the patent owner.

[00:01:22] Speaker 01:
So the issue here regarding claim construction is a narrow one.

[00:01:27] Speaker 01:
One claim term, the term channel, appears in the claims of multiple related patents that all share the same specification.

[00:01:37] Speaker 01:
The board construed the term channel in the 822 patent, which is an issue here, as any path for transmitting signals.

[00:01:46] Speaker 01:
This is inconsistent with the board's claim construction

[00:01:51] Speaker 01:
finding in six other IPR petitions directed to related patents.

[00:01:57] Speaker 01:
It's inconsistent with the claim language itself in the 822 patent and all remaining intrinsic evidence.

[00:02:04] Speaker 01:
So the claims of the patent at issue here, the 822 patent, recite RF signals having channels.

[00:02:13] Speaker 01:
The claims of the related patents that share the same specification as the 822 patent

[00:02:19] Speaker 01:
recite RF signals having RF channels.

[00:02:23] Speaker 02:
Isn't it true that RF signals can have different kinds of channels?

[00:02:27] Speaker 02:
I mean, there could be radio frequency channels, but there's also other kinds of channels, right?

[00:02:33] Speaker 01:
In the context of the intrinsic evidence in all patents, including the 822 and the related patents, in the board even found, when discussing the invention, it was a specific traditional type of channel, a frequency band, that channels

[00:02:47] Speaker 04:
That's your position.

[00:02:48] Speaker 04:
I understand that.

[00:02:49] Speaker 04:
But to follow up on Judge Stoll's question, isn't it true that RF signals can be transmitted through various modulation schemes, not just FDMA, but CDMA as well?

[00:03:03] Speaker 04:
In a vacuum, that would be true.

[00:03:05] Speaker 01:
But in the context of the intrinsic evidence, CDMA?

[00:03:07] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:03:07] Speaker 04:
Your argument is in the context of this patent, the way the written description is written, there's something about your usage of the term channel that

[00:03:17] Speaker 04:
channels us all to think about RF channels?

[00:03:22] Speaker 01:
Right?

[00:03:22] Speaker 01:
Yes, and there's, I can unwind that in a couple ways.

[00:03:26] Speaker 01:
So an RF signal having a channel, the channel's necessarily an RF channel, it's an RF signal.

[00:03:32] Speaker 01:
Some paths recite RF signals having RF channels, some paths recite RF signals having channels, but since

[00:03:38] Speaker 01:
The parties agree RF just stands for radio frequency and the parties agree that that's just a spectrum, one portion of the electromagnetic overall spectrum.

[00:03:49] Speaker 01:
So RF is just a modifier, it means radio frequency.

[00:03:55] Speaker 01:
So a radio frequency signal having a radio frequency channel.

[00:03:58] Speaker 01:
is no different than a radio frequency signal having a channel.

[00:04:02] Speaker 01:
Since it's an RF signal, it necessarily has to be a radio frequency channel in an RF signal.

[00:04:07] Speaker 04:
So you're again equating RF signals on a channel with necessarily the channel being an RF channel.

[00:04:15] Speaker 04:
And that takes me back to what I thought we agreed on, which is that RF signals

[00:04:21] Speaker 04:
don't necessarily have to be on RF channels.

[00:04:24] Speaker 04:
There can be other modulation schemes in working with transmitting RF signals.

[00:04:32] Speaker 01:
There could be an evacuate.

[00:04:34] Speaker 01:
Even the board found, here in the intrinsic evidence, all discussion of the invention

[00:04:40] Speaker 01:
was in the context of a traditional channel, which is a frequency band.

[00:04:44] Speaker 01:
There's no mention of nontraditional, unique types of channels like in CDMA and the intrinsic evidence.

[00:04:51] Speaker 01:
There's no mention of CDMA at all.

[00:04:53] Speaker 01:
So what happened here, even Cisco agrees that RF signals having channels, that those channels are necessarily RF channels.

[00:05:02] Speaker 01:
And the board determined that Cisco's expert in his declaration that he submitted with the petition said that.

[00:05:09] Speaker 02:
Can you tell us where that is in the appendix?

[00:05:12] Speaker 01:
That is appendix 552, 0552, paragraph 122.

[00:05:21] Speaker 01:
Doctor, I'm sorry Mr.. Wexelberg I'm sorry.

[00:05:25] Speaker 02:
What was that again?

[00:05:26] Speaker 02:
I apologize you say five five two.

[00:05:28] Speaker 01:
That's correct So this is where Cisco's expert stated And the claim phrase at issue in the 82 patent is RF signals containing multiple channels and

[00:05:47] Speaker 02:
What paragraph are you looking at?

[00:05:49] Speaker 01:
122.

[00:05:50] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:05:53] Speaker 02:
And I'm on page 552.

[00:05:55] Speaker 01:
And I think it continues on the 553.

[00:05:58] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:06:01] Speaker 01:
And the quote itself may be on 553.

[00:06:05] Speaker 01:
So when considering the 822 claim frames are signals containing multiple channels.

[00:06:14] Speaker 01:
Mr. Wetzelberger said, this is directed to, quote, RF channels.

[00:06:19] Speaker 01:
That is channels in an RF signal, unquote.

[00:06:25] Speaker 04:
Well, that could be somewhat ambiguous what he's referring to there when he says that is channels in an RF signal.

[00:06:33] Speaker 04:
And then it goes on to say, but not specify or require a particular type of multiplexing or modulation to provide the channel in the RF signal.

[00:06:39] Speaker 04:
So to me, the remainder of the sentence

[00:06:43] Speaker 04:
that you did not quote, clarifies what he's getting at in this declaration when he refers to RF channel.

[00:06:50] Speaker 04:
That means any kind of channel that can carry an RF signal, regardless of the multiplexing or modulation, to provide the channel in the RF signal.

[00:07:01] Speaker 01:
Yeah, I think if we start right back at the beginning of this paragraph, and the previous paragraph as well,

[00:07:08] Speaker 01:
we see that Cisco's expert started with the assumption that the construction was path, path for transmitting electrical signals.

[00:07:16] Speaker 01:
And in the beginning of paragraph 122, he then says, nothing suggests another meaning is necessary.

[00:07:25] Speaker 01:
And then he jumps into dictionary definitions.

[00:07:28] Speaker 01:
And that's exactly what the board did as well.

[00:07:30] Speaker 01:
So the claim construction here is somewhat backwards.

[00:07:34] Speaker 01:
There's an assumption that,

[00:07:38] Speaker 01:
that the construction should be path.

[00:07:41] Speaker 01:
And then the board and Cisco and Cisco's expert went through the dictionaries first and said, aha, we could justify that via some arbitrary dictionaries.

[00:07:50] Speaker 01:
And we looked at the specification.

[00:07:51] Speaker 01:
There's nothing that contradicts that in the specification.

[00:07:55] Speaker 01:
But that's backwards.

[00:07:57] Speaker 01:
And when the board considered the other related IPRs, the board started with the specification and said, I'm looking at all of the embodiments.

[00:08:06] Speaker 01:
And all of the embodiments are directed to a traditional type of frequency, frequency band.

[00:08:11] Speaker 04:
What if we conclude that what the board did here was first try to figure out whether the term channel has an ordinary meaning in the art divorced from the patent and found that there was, but then also investigated the specification and concluded that the specification did not use the term channel in a way that

[00:08:33] Speaker 04:
was interchangeable with RF channel, but instead was consistent with the backdrop of understanding.

[00:08:41] Speaker 04:
I mean, you had your own expert explain how channel is a very broad term and the term channel itself doesn't say anything about which type of modulation scheme is used.

[00:08:53] Speaker 04:
And so when the board looked at the written description, it didn't see anything that defined down that ordinary broad understanding and conception of channel to be necessarily RF channel.

[00:09:06] Speaker 04:
Yes, there are embodiments that describe an RF channel, but not so much in a way that says it must be an RF channel, especially when

[00:09:17] Speaker 04:
The written description also talks about other things, like the use of digital PCS in cellular telephones.

[00:09:24] Speaker 04:
And we know that those things aren't necessarily required to be using FDMA.

[00:09:32] Speaker 04:
Could be CDMA.

[00:09:35] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:09:36] Speaker 01:
Well, let me explain.

[00:09:38] Speaker 01:
So starting with our expert, he immediately followed up and said, in the context of this patent, a channel can only be a frequency band.

[00:09:47] Speaker 01:
That section of the specification, which was talking about back then, when it mentioned PCS and cellular telephones, never mentioned the word channels.

[00:09:56] Speaker 01:
It's just a technology.

[00:09:58] Speaker 01:
There is, yes, a special unique type of cellular technology called CDMA that uses non-traditional channels.

[00:10:04] Speaker 01:
CDMA is not mentioned at all.

[00:10:07] Speaker 01:
The patent did talk about digital channels and analog channels and just traditional transmission.

[00:10:13] Speaker 01:
But in that context,

[00:10:15] Speaker 01:
Our expert explained it's still a frequency band.

[00:10:18] Speaker 01:
That testimony was unrevoked.

[00:10:21] Speaker 01:
Our expert explained that in all contexts, even in the background, the channels discussed were traditional frequency bands.

[00:10:27] Speaker 01:
There was nothing that suggests to go outside of the box and consider a nontraditional channel.

[00:10:33] Speaker 01:
It just doesn't fit in the invention.

[00:10:36] Speaker 01:
The board explained that when considering the other IPRs as well.

[00:10:40] Speaker 01:
When considering the term RF channel, the only difference between RF channel and channel

[00:10:44] Speaker 01:
is a modifier radio frequency.

[00:10:46] Speaker 01:
The underlying noun is the same.

[00:10:48] Speaker 01:
An RF channel is the same as a regular channel, but for the modifier RF, which just adds radio frequency.

[00:10:57] Speaker 01:
By removing the modifier RF, it doesn't transform the noun into something different.

[00:11:03] Speaker 01:
A frequency band.

[00:11:04] Speaker 02:
If there are multiple different types of channels, and one of those types is RF channel, why doesn't

[00:11:12] Speaker 02:
RF imparts some meaning to the word channel?

[00:11:16] Speaker 01:
It does.

[00:11:17] Speaker 01:
The parties agree that RF stands for radio frequency.

[00:11:21] Speaker 01:
It's just a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.

[00:11:24] Speaker 02:
So you don't think it means it's a frequency channel?

[00:11:27] Speaker 01:
That's right.

[00:11:29] Speaker 01:
The channel itself is a frequency band.

[00:11:32] Speaker 01:
RF simply

[00:11:33] Speaker 01:
Clarifies that is a frequency band in the radiofrequency spectrum.

[00:11:36] Speaker 02:
What about a coded channel?

[00:11:38] Speaker 01:
Coded channel is a non-traditional channel.

[00:11:40] Speaker 01:
That's a CDMA channel not mentioned anywhere in the intrinsic evidence, not in the patent.

[00:11:46] Speaker 02:
When you say the intrinsic evidence, you mean the claims and specification?

[00:11:50] Speaker 01:
Claims and specification in the file histories.

[00:11:52] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:11:52] Speaker 01:
And the IPRs for the related patents

[00:11:56] Speaker 01:
are now part of the file history.

[00:11:57] Speaker 01:
It's all intrinsic evidence as well.

[00:11:59] Speaker 02:
Your case is kind of interesting because it's a little bit of a struggle.

[00:12:02] Speaker 02:
You say it really brings to bear on the idea of how much do we rely on the embodiments disclosed in the specification to interpret a claim?

[00:12:18] Speaker 02:
What doctrine do we rely on?

[00:12:20] Speaker 02:
Are we reading in radio frequency from the claim, which is something we're not supposed to read in from the specification into the claim?

[00:12:28] Speaker 02:
Or are we interpreting the claim in light of the specification to say that because every embodiment in the specification talks about a frequency channel, we're supposed to read in frequency channel, even though in this set of claims, it seems as if the patent owner has purposefully omitted that term.

[00:12:47] Speaker 01:
So how do you stand on that?

[00:12:51] Speaker 01:
First, the term in the other patent is RF signals having RF channels.

[00:12:58] Speaker 01:
So RF is already in the claim, RF signals, radio frequency signals.

[00:13:03] Speaker 01:
Right, it's in both claims.

[00:13:04] Speaker 01:
In both claims.

[00:13:05] Speaker 02:
And we've already established that radio frequency signals can be put into different types of channels.

[00:13:12] Speaker 02:
Outside of your specification.

[00:13:15] Speaker 01:
Yes, divorced in the specification in a vacuum, that may be true.

[00:13:21] Speaker 01:
But in the context of the intrinsic evidence, there's no suggestion of non-traditional coding channels.

[00:13:28] Speaker 01:
It doesn't fit.

[00:13:29] Speaker 01:
It just doesn't apply.

[00:13:31] Speaker 01:
And the way that the board got there was by saying, well, let's look at the background section.

[00:13:36] Speaker 01:
It talks about digital channels and analog channels.

[00:13:40] Speaker 01:
Those are still traditional channels.

[00:13:42] Speaker 01:
A couple sentences later, it mentions PCS and cellular, but not in the context of channels.

[00:13:47] Speaker 01:
And then take a logical leap and say, well, cellular, there's a special type of cellular, CDMA.

[00:13:53] Speaker 01:
So therefore, the intrinsic evidence must somehow be contemplating CDMA.

[00:13:58] Speaker 01:
But that's changing the intrinsic evidence.

[00:14:02] Speaker 01:
There's no suggestion that cellular, in the context of the background of the patent, is anything but traditional cellular.

[00:14:08] Speaker 02:
Are there other types of channels, aren't there, like time division channels?

[00:14:13] Speaker 01:
For the same reason, they don't fit into the context of the invention, which is combining channels to increase data rate.

[00:14:22] Speaker 01:
These are just traditional frequency division channels.

[00:14:26] Speaker 01:
Go back to the beginning of television.

[00:14:28] Speaker 01:
Standard, our expert explained it in all contexts.

[00:14:31] Speaker 01:
This fits.

[00:14:32] Speaker 01:
It's the only thing that fits.

[00:14:35] Speaker 02:
Where does BRI fit in here?

[00:14:37] Speaker 01:
BRI is with the other IPRs when the board was considering the term RF signals having RF channels.

[00:14:48] Speaker 01:
Under BRI, the board said that's a frequency band.

[00:14:53] Speaker 01:
All the parties agreed that was correct.

[00:14:56] Speaker 01:
The board got it right.

[00:14:57] Speaker 01:
RF channels in an RF signal means frequency band.

[00:15:01] Speaker 01:
We now turn to the other pattern, RF signals having channels.

[00:15:06] Speaker 01:
And frequency band is just simply thrown out.

[00:15:10] Speaker 01:
The underlying noun... It's not there.

[00:15:12] Speaker 02:
It's not the adjective that describes channels anymore.

[00:15:16] Speaker 01:
The adjective being radio frequency spectrum, having nothing to do with the frequency band.

[00:15:21] Speaker 01:
It's just a channel, and the radio frequency spectrum exists below infrared and gamma frequencies and above audio frequencies.

[00:15:30] Speaker 01:
It's just a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.

[00:15:34] Speaker 01:
So for example, a gamma channel is not an RF channel.

[00:15:40] Speaker 01:
An infrared channel is not an RF channel.

[00:15:42] Speaker 01:
It's not a channel in the radio frequency spectrum.

[00:15:46] Speaker 01:
That's what the claims are reciting.

[00:15:48] Speaker 01:
A signal on a radio frequency spectrum having channels in the radio frequency spectrum.

[00:15:52] Speaker 00:
Council, you're just about through your time, including rebuttal time.

[00:15:57] Speaker 00:
Why don't we hear from the other side, and we'll give you two minutes for rebuttal.

[00:16:00] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:16:03] Speaker 00:
Mr. Stacey.

[00:16:07] Speaker 03:
Morning, Your Honors.

[00:16:09] Speaker 03:
Please the court.

[00:16:10] Speaker 03:
I think I'll try to pick up on the line that was just going about RF channel versus channel and

[00:16:19] Speaker 03:
Patent owner needs to equate those two terms to win on this issue.

[00:16:24] Speaker 03:
But when you go back and look at what the board did on the 556, if you look at appendix page 27, the board made a finding that the term RF channel was used consistently in the specification.

[00:16:36] Speaker 03:
In other words, implied definition to refer to a frequency band channel.

[00:16:43] Speaker 03:
Looking at that term in the abstract, you really have to look at what the patent office or what the PTAB already did.

[00:16:49] Speaker 03:
They found an implied definition of RF channel that linked it to frequency band.

[00:16:55] Speaker 03:
Here in this patent, we do not have RF channel.

[00:16:57] Speaker 03:
We just have channel.

[00:16:59] Speaker 03:
And as your honors pointed out, the channel by itself is a broad term.

[00:17:05] Speaker 03:
And when you go to Mr. Wechselberger's declaration, when you read that entire paragraph at 122,

[00:17:13] Speaker 03:
He points out exactly what he means in that channel in this patent is often used with some other term to identify what type of channel.

[00:17:24] Speaker 03:
So it used RF channel to define the frequency band channel, according to the patent office.

[00:17:29] Speaker 03:
And it talks about analog channels and digital channels.

[00:17:33] Speaker 03:
So what they're asking you to do is take a generic term, a broad term, that no one disagrees is a broad term, and read something in there

[00:17:42] Speaker 03:
that would narrow the definition.

[00:17:45] Speaker 03:
So what's the reason for doing that?

[00:17:47] Speaker 03:
If you go through your standard claim construction canons here, we look at the claims.

[00:17:52] Speaker 03:
Does the claim dictate that channel should be narrowed to frequency type channel?

[00:17:57] Speaker 03:
Well, there's nothing in the claims other than that that they point to, other than the word RF signal.

[00:18:02] Speaker 03:
And what does RF signal tell us?

[00:18:05] Speaker 03:
It tells us nothing.

[00:18:06] Speaker 03:
RF signal just tells us which portion of the electromagnetic spectrum we're talking about.

[00:18:11] Speaker 03:
The electromagnetic spectrum goes from gamma rays to visible light down to radio signals.

[00:18:18] Speaker 03:
And it just tells us which portion of the spectrum we're in.

[00:18:23] Speaker 03:
But you can have multiple types of channels within any type of radio frequency.

[00:18:28] Speaker 03:
And if you look at Mr. Wexelberger at paragraph 122 that was brought up, he actually points out where those different channels were used.

[00:18:37] Speaker 03:
So there's nothing in the claims that require it.

[00:18:40] Speaker 03:
Now you look back to your spec, just going through your standard claim constructions, there's no specific definition of RF channel.

[00:18:47] Speaker 03:
If there was, no one would be here on this.

[00:18:50] Speaker 03:
And then that leads us with, is there some kind of implied definition?

[00:18:55] Speaker 03:
And the most you have here is that they have a preferred embodiment that uses specific types of frequency channels.

[00:19:04] Speaker 03:
In this court, it's found over and over again

[00:19:06] Speaker 03:
A single embodiment, even if it's just described as a single embodiment, much less as a preferred embodiment, doesn't justify reading something from the spec into the claims.

[00:19:16] Speaker 03:
And we don't even have that standard single embodiment language here.

[00:19:20] Speaker 03:
What we have is the single embodiment with lots of statements saying, well, this is one embodiment.

[00:19:26] Speaker 03:
This is the preferred embodiment.

[00:19:27] Speaker 03:
You could broaden this out.

[00:19:28] Speaker 03:
There's nothing inherently limited about this invention to a frequency embodiment.

[00:19:36] Speaker 02:
How do you respond to the argument that the board's construction here is inconsistent with the construction it arrived at in the other related cases?

[00:19:47] Speaker 03:
So the board took that on directly.

[00:19:51] Speaker 03:
I mean, they were accused of that in the hearing.

[00:19:54] Speaker 03:
And that's at appendix page 27.

[00:19:57] Speaker 03:
And what the board said is that,

[00:19:59] Speaker 03:
when we defined RF channel in the 556 patent and these other patents, that RF channel, they found a consistent usage throughout the spec where every time that they used RF channel, it was tied to the embodiment that had a frequency band limitation.

[00:20:18] Speaker 03:
So they found an implied definition for RF channel in the spec.

[00:20:24] Speaker 03:
And when you remove that RF, now you're not looking at the same term anymore.

[00:20:28] Speaker 03:
You don't have the implied definition anymore.

[00:20:37] Speaker 03:
The other two issues weren't addressed.

[00:20:40] Speaker 03:
in opening, and I don't know if the panel has any questions.

[00:20:43] Speaker 00:
You're entitled to address them.

[00:20:46] Speaker 03:
Well, one I would like to address is the Qualcomm reference, where their only issue is due process, that they weren't given due process.

[00:20:55] Speaker 03:
There seems to be a little bit of confusion in the briefing about that.

[00:20:59] Speaker 03:
Just to point out, to make everything clear and probably my fault on the briefing, there were two grounds that were put in the petition, grounds one and grounds two.

[00:21:07] Speaker 03:
Ground one was not instituted.

[00:21:09] Speaker 03:
Ground two was instituted and resulted in the final written decision.

[00:21:13] Speaker 03:
The statement that they point to about Qualcomm in the board's alleged disavowal of using Qualcomm as prior art relates solely to ground one.

[00:21:23] Speaker 03:
And you can see that in the board's decision.

[00:21:26] Speaker 03:
It's solely with ground one.

[00:21:28] Speaker 03:
As for ground two, the board actually refers to the Wexelberg declaration, AWD declaration, paragraphs 203 and 204, that are the Qualcomm material.

[00:21:42] Speaker 03:
So if you follow all the way through, you start with the Wexelberger Declaration that went with the petition.

[00:21:51] Speaker 03:
That's at appendix 606 and 607.

[00:21:55] Speaker 03:
Those are paragraphs 203 and 204.

[00:21:56] Speaker 03:
They're in the original declaration.

[00:22:00] Speaker 03:
In the original petition, you'll find those same paragraphs, 200 through 204, utilized.

[00:22:08] Speaker 03:
Appendix 116 and 117.

[00:22:11] Speaker 03:
So we're now in the petition.

[00:22:13] Speaker 03:
So Qualcomm's squarely in the petition.

[00:22:15] Speaker 03:
And then when you look at the institution decision for Ground 2, the only one that was carried through, you're looking at Appendix 224.

[00:22:23] Speaker 03:
It cites to the Wexelberger Declaration 203-204.

[00:22:28] Speaker 03:
So now we're all the way into the institution decision.

[00:22:31] Speaker 03:
And when you get to the final written decision on Ground 2,

[00:22:34] Speaker 03:
The board, again, refers to, at appendix 39, the Wexelberger Declaration 203 and 204.

[00:22:43] Speaker 03:
So Qualcomm goes from the beginning to the end for ground two.

[00:22:48] Speaker 03:
And there's no statement by the board ever that they would not consider Qualcomm as bolstering evidence for ground two.

[00:22:56] Speaker 03:
The statements that are pointed to by my opponent are solely related to ground one, which died on institution.

[00:23:06] Speaker 03:
And the final piece would be on obviousness.

[00:23:10] Speaker 03:
Their argument is not that the combination is improper, not that it can't be done, but that the board didn't articulate its decision properly.

[00:23:19] Speaker 03:
There are almost 10 pages of description explaining the obviousness combinations and many, many individual fact findings on that.

[00:23:30] Speaker 03:
So the board actually not only went through and affirmatively

[00:23:34] Speaker 03:
The board then specifically went and rebutted the evidence that my opponents put forward that said there's not sufficient description.

[00:23:52] Speaker 03:
both from the experts and from the record.

[00:23:55] Speaker 03:
So I didn't hear anything specific today, of course.

[00:23:59] Speaker 03:
But within those nine pages, there seems to be significant evidence, but definitely substantial evidence, to support the board's obviousness findings.

[00:24:09] Speaker 03:
And following on my previous colleague, unless you have any questions, I will surrender the rest of my time.

[00:24:16] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Mr. Stacey.

[00:24:18] Speaker 00:
Mr. Whitman has a couple of minutes for a bottle.

[00:24:28] Speaker 01:
follow up quickly on the clamp construction issue.

[00:24:30] Speaker 01:
So Cisco has done a complete about face on the clamp construction here in this case.

[00:24:37] Speaker 01:
In their petition, they argued that the term RF was just a modifier.

[00:24:41] Speaker 01:
They proposed for the other related patents that the term RF channel meant an RF path for transmitting signals.

[00:24:50] Speaker 01:
They said for this patent, the term channel without the RF modifier simply meant path for transmitting

[00:24:57] Speaker 01:
electrical signals.

[00:24:59] Speaker 01:
RF, in all instances, is just an adjective, a clarifier, a modifier.

[00:25:04] Speaker 01:
It just adds radio frequency spectrum.

[00:25:06] Speaker 01:
Cisco, in its original petition, agreed with that.

[00:25:12] Speaker 01:
In the construction of RF channel, it threw in RF, because it's undisputed, RF just simply means radio frequency spectrum.

[00:25:19] Speaker 01:
In the term channel, without the modifier RF, they just removed it.

[00:25:23] Speaker 01:
Just took RF out and left it as path.

[00:25:25] Speaker 01:
But in all instances, the underlying channel remained constant.

[00:25:32] Speaker 01:
In Cisco's construction, it was always a path.

[00:25:35] Speaker 01:
It was either an RF path or a path.

[00:25:38] Speaker 01:
The board, however, said for an RF channel, it's a frequency band.

[00:25:42] Speaker 01:
And they said every embodiment, every embodiment disclosed discusses frequency bands.

[00:25:49] Speaker 01:
They went to the background.

[00:25:50] Speaker 01:
I think they made a mistake interpreting the background, read in CDMA where it doesn't exist, and said, we're going to change basically the entire definition of channel now when we remove the simple words RF.

[00:26:02] Speaker 01:
We remove RF, remove the clarifier, remove the modifier, and now a frequency band becomes any path whatsoever.

[00:26:12] Speaker 01:
They basically changed the definition of the underlying term channel.

[00:26:16] Speaker 01:
And Cisco recognized that back in the original petition.

[00:26:21] Speaker 01:
So that's de novo.

[00:26:23] Speaker 01:
We believe that construction cannot stand.

[00:26:25] Speaker 01:
We believe the construction is inconsistent.

[00:26:27] Speaker 01:
And we ask that it be reversed.

[00:26:29] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:26:30] Speaker 00:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:26:31] Speaker 00:
The case is submitted.