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

[00:00:03] Speaker 03:
For this panel, we're going to hear three oral arguments.

[00:00:06] Speaker 03:
The first oral argument for this panel is docket number 18-1349, IPCOM versus HTC Corporation.

[00:00:15] Speaker 03:
Mr. Reed, whenever you're ready.

[00:00:31] Speaker 01:
May it please the court?

[00:00:33] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:34] Speaker 01:
My name is David Reed.

[00:00:35] Speaker 01:
I'm here on behalf of IPCOM.

[00:00:39] Speaker 01:
The dispositive issue in this appeal is the correct construction of the arrangement for reactivating element of the claims, which is agreed it's a means plus function element.

[00:00:50] Speaker 01:
The examiner, during the re-examination proceedings, correctly identified the corresponding algorithm for that limitation.

[00:00:58] Speaker 01:
is the three-step procedure in figure five of the specification, which is described in column six at lines 30 to 40.

[00:01:06] Speaker 01:
The board on remand from this court's last decision in this re-examination, erred by identifying instead a corresponding algorithm as nothing more than

[00:01:20] Speaker 01:
a mobile station or cell phone sending a message, sending a simple message to the original base station to reactivate the link.

[00:01:31] Speaker 01:
And there are two reasons that I'd like to focus on for why the board's algorithm is incorrect.

[00:01:37] Speaker 01:
First, that simple message algorithm is not an alternative algorithm in the specification.

[00:01:44] Speaker 01:
Rather, it is describing figures four to six, which describe the reactivation in more detail.

[00:01:52] Speaker 01:
And that statement that the board is relying on is part of the algorithm that's shown in those figures.

[00:02:00] Speaker 01:
The second reason is that the board's simple message algorithm alone is insufficient structure to perform the recited function.

[00:02:11] Speaker 01:
So addressing the first point.

[00:02:13] Speaker 00:
Can I ask you a question?

[00:02:15] Speaker 00:
As I understand the claim from the first HTC case that dealt with the indefiniteness issue, do I understand correctly that the language and arrangement for reactivating the link with the first base station if the handover is unsuccessful, that's talking about a function that is performed by the mobile station, right?

[00:02:39] Speaker 01:
That is correct.

[00:02:40] Speaker 01:
In that first appeal, the 2012 decision, the court held that the claim is directed to a mobile station and that the mobile station comprises that arrangement that's set forth in that element.

[00:02:54] Speaker 00:
So something that's performed, for example, by the base station wouldn't fall within the arrangement because the arrangement is only within the mobile station.

[00:03:04] Speaker 01:
That is correct, Your Honors.

[00:03:07] Speaker 01:
The algorithm involves the mobile station specifically both sending and receiving messages.

[00:03:16] Speaker 01:
So the three steps are first the mobile station receiving a rejection message that's sent by the target base station and then sending a message back to the original base station

[00:03:28] Speaker 01:
to maintain the link, and then the mobile station then receiving a message, an acknowledgment message from that original base station that reestablishes the link.

[00:03:40] Speaker 01:
So the board relies on a statement in the top of column five at lines 10 to 12.

[00:03:47] Speaker 03:
It's a pretty clear sentence, isn't it?

[00:03:51] Speaker 03:
Quote, if the handover to new base station BS2 fails, the MS mobile station can reactivate the link to the old base station by sending a simple message, period.

[00:04:05] Speaker 03:
What's unclear about that sentence that says

[00:04:10] Speaker 03:
the mobile station can reactivate the link to the old base station by sending a simple message.

[00:04:16] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, context is the key here.

[00:04:19] Speaker 01:
That sentence immediately follows a sentence that reads, figures four to six relate to a method for handing over to an MS from an old base station to a new base station.

[00:04:33] Speaker 01:
And then that sentence says, if the handover, referring to the handover

[00:04:37] Speaker 01:
that was described in the previous sentence, describing figures four to six, if the handover fails, then the mobile station can reactivate the link.

[00:04:47] Speaker 01:
That sentence cannot logically be read as describing an alternative algorithm as HTC maintains.

[00:04:55] Speaker 01:
Rather, the only logical way to read that sentence is describing what is shown in those figures, figures four to six that it's referring to.

[00:05:07] Speaker 01:
Those figures, specifically figure five, is the only example in the specification of an unsuccessful handover, followed by reactivation of the original link.

[00:05:20] Speaker 01:
In reading that in context, the simple message that statement is referring to

[00:05:26] Speaker 01:
is referring to a message 408 in that algorithm, which is a message, a simple message from the mobile station back to the original base station that it wants to maintain that link.

[00:05:38] Speaker 01:
But the algorithm doesn't stop there.

[00:05:40] Speaker 01:
It also involves an acknowledgment message back from the original base station.

[00:05:47] Speaker 01:
So that's the natural reading of the specification and how a person of ordinary skill in the art would read it.

[00:05:54] Speaker 01:
And there's expert testimony on this point

[00:05:56] Speaker 01:
explaining that understanding of a person of ordinary skill, and that expert testimony is one-sided here.

[00:06:03] Speaker 03:
IP comms... That expert testimony was rather conclusory.

[00:06:08] Speaker 03:
It didn't really provide any kind of reasoning or rationale or explanation for why the expert

[00:06:17] Speaker 03:
reached the conclusion that he proclaimed.

[00:06:21] Speaker 03:
And so that's one problem.

[00:06:24] Speaker 03:
The second problem is that this exercise of trying to identify what the corresponding structure is for a means plus function limitation, as I understand it, is a legal question.

[00:06:34] Speaker 03:
That's a question for the court.

[00:06:35] Speaker 03:
The exercise of trying to match up different pieces of the intrinsic evidence to a means plus function limitation, I believe that's a legal question.

[00:06:46] Speaker 03:
And so therefore, we're not going to be giving deference to any kind of expert.

[00:06:50] Speaker 03:
So that's problem number two.

[00:06:52] Speaker 03:
So in the end, I don't think you have very much juice out of your expert declaration.

[00:07:00] Speaker 03:
So in the end, it comes down to more of an exercise of trying to understand what is it about this simple declarative statement in column five that is overrun by anything else that's going on in the rest of the specification.

[00:07:16] Speaker 01:
So to respond to that, after Dr. Mattisetti identified the algorithm, HTC submitted its own expert testimony, and its own expert did not dispute that algorithm.

[00:07:28] Speaker 01:
So I would note that that was at appendix 12777.

[00:07:33] Speaker 00:
I want to make sure I'm looking at the right expert testimony, because I was kind of surprised that this was set up as being something that's expert testimony supporting the claim construction.

[00:07:42] Speaker 00:
It's at page 12556, right?

[00:07:46] Speaker 00:
Is that the page I should be looking at?

[00:07:47] Speaker 01:
So 12.556 is the testimony from Dr. Mattesetti, who is IPCOM's expert, and then HTC's expert testimony responding to Dr. Mattesetti was at Appendix 12.777.

[00:08:01] Speaker 00:
Right, but I don't, you're relying on 12.556 and showing your experts

[00:08:08] Speaker 00:
I guess, analysis of the claim construction and what the proper corresponding structure is.

[00:08:12] Speaker 00:
But all I read here is he says, I understand from counsel that the structure provided by the algorithm is the following.

[00:08:20] Speaker 00:
I don't even see him necessarily providing that testimony.

[00:08:26] Speaker 00:
And I agree, it seems conclusory.

[00:08:28] Speaker 00:
Is it just paragraph 18 and the sentence above it?

[00:08:32] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor, that's the specific testimony.

[00:08:34] Speaker 01:
And his understanding from counsel

[00:08:37] Speaker 01:
the legal point that additional structure is provided by any algorithm disclosed in the patent to perform the recited function.

[00:08:45] Speaker 01:
And then in paragraph 18, he provides his opinion, having looked at the patent, identifying what he believes to be the corresponding algorithm.

[00:08:54] Speaker 01:
He admittedly does not grapple with this question about column 5, because that argument had not been advanced to that point by HTC.

[00:09:03] Speaker 01:
However, when HTC did advance that argument,

[00:09:06] Speaker 01:
It submitted expert testimony of its own, and its expert didn't dispute that the three-step algorithm applies instead.

[00:09:15] Speaker 03:
Do you agree that this is a legal exercise that we're undertaking here?

[00:09:18] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:09:18] Speaker 01:
I agree that it's a legal exercise, although the Supreme Court's tentative decision recognizes that it can include underlying

[00:09:25] Speaker 01:
factual questions about how a person of ordinary skill in the art would read the specification.

[00:09:30] Speaker 01:
And in this court's Atmel Corp decision, which is cited in our briefing, the board has found that the board has erred by ignoring unrebutted expert testimony on what a corresponding structure is in a specification.

[00:09:50] Speaker 01:
But I don't want to put too much emphasis.

[00:09:52] Speaker 01:
The focus really should be on the intrinsic evidence, as you noted.

[00:09:55] Speaker 01:
And that's the first and foremost in the claim construction inquiry.

[00:10:00] Speaker 01:
And here, I'd like to note my second point from my intro that the simple message alone

[00:10:09] Speaker 01:
in that sentence in the top of column five is insufficient structure.

[00:10:14] Speaker 01:
It alone, in the context of this claim, cannot fully perform the function.

[00:10:21] Speaker 01:
And the reason for that is that the claim, in the element immediately preceding the arrangement for reactivating, it recites a timer element.

[00:10:29] Speaker 01:
So in this network environment, there are two base stations, a first and a second base station.

[00:10:34] Speaker 01:
When the cell phone attempts a handover,

[00:10:38] Speaker 01:
a timer set in that original base station and that timer, the link resources and the link data for the link is maintained but only until that timer expires.

[00:10:53] Speaker 01:
After that timer expires, the link is cleared and the mobile station cannot go back and reactivate the link.

[00:11:00] Speaker 01:
So here, where there's a mobile station that sends a message that it wants to return, as described in column 6, it doesn't know whether that message is received before or after expiration of that timer unless it first receives that acknowledgment message.

[00:11:19] Speaker 01:
And in column 6, the patent explains that it's the acknowledgment message that reestablishes the link.

[00:11:26] Speaker 00:
Can you tell me where you're pointing to, in particular in column 6?

[00:11:32] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:11:33] Speaker 01:
I would direct you to column 6 at line 38, which reads, the sentence immediately before explains that the message from the mobile station is a message indicating that it wants to maintain the link.

[00:11:48] Speaker 01:
And then at line 38,

[00:11:50] Speaker 01:
the specification states the link between BS1 and the MS can be reestablished by means of a simple acknowledge message for 9.

[00:11:59] Speaker 00:
What do you make of the fact that the claim talks about reactivating and the language in the specification at column 5 lines 10 through 12 talks about reactivating and this

[00:12:12] Speaker 00:
language that you're pointing to here in column 6 is talking about reestablishing.

[00:12:18] Speaker 00:
In different claims, some of them refer to reestablishing, some of them refer to reactivating.

[00:12:23] Speaker 00:
Is reactivation something just referring to what the mobile station is doing?

[00:12:28] Speaker 01:
There's no magic in the specification to the word reactivate versus reestablish.

[00:12:34] Speaker 01:
The specification

[00:12:37] Speaker 01:
uses a wide variety of terms to refer to the same concept.

[00:12:42] Speaker 01:
In column five, it uses the term, the word reactivate, in column six.

[00:12:46] Speaker 00:
That's in the context of the specific step of sending a simple message, right?

[00:12:51] Speaker 00:
It's the only place in the specification where the word's used, actually.

[00:12:54] Speaker 01:
It is, but it's also used in reference to figures four to six, which that sentence is referring to.

[00:13:01] Speaker 01:
The specification also in column six uses the terms reestablish or the mobile station returning to the Old Bay station.

[00:13:09] Speaker 00:
I know, but I'm asking if there's a difference between reactivating and reestablishing.

[00:13:14] Speaker 01:
I don't believe so, Your Honor.

[00:13:15] Speaker 01:
I believe those terms are used interchangeably.

[00:13:18] Speaker 01:
along with several others in the specification.

[00:13:21] Speaker 00:
What are the other terms that you think are used?

[00:13:23] Speaker 01:
Re-register is used in column 7 to refer to the same concept, or setting up the old link again sometimes is used.

[00:13:31] Speaker 01:
I would also note during prosecution, as you noted, there were claims that used reactivating, claims that used reestablishing.

[00:13:41] Speaker 01:
And during original prosecution, the applicant treated those terms and those claims the same.

[00:13:47] Speaker 01:
in distinguishing prior art, which we explain in our reply at pages eight and nine.

[00:13:53] Speaker 01:
You're into your rebuttal.

[00:13:54] Speaker 01:
I'd like to say my rebuttal.

[00:13:55] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:14:06] Speaker 02:
Good morning.

[00:14:06] Speaker 02:
May it please the court.

[00:14:07] Speaker 02:
My name is Tyler Bowen, and I'm here today on behalf of HTC Corporation.

[00:14:12] Speaker 02:
Your Honors, I'd like to start with the specification in column five, if I can.

[00:14:17] Speaker 02:
and discuss a little bit what is disclosed in the specification with regard to this feature of a mobile station being able to return to a first base station if a handover to a second base station is unsuccessful.

[00:14:32] Speaker 02:
My counsel for IPCOM has pointed to column five, lines 10 through 12.

[00:14:39] Speaker 02:
And Judge Chen already read that into the record.

[00:14:42] Speaker 02:
But something similar is also described again in column seven.

[00:14:45] Speaker 02:
of the patent at lines 50 to 52, where it says, if the search for a new base station is unsuccessful, the mobile station re-registers at its old base station and keeps its previous settings.

[00:14:58] Speaker 02:
There, too, there is no discussion of an acknowledgement message.

[00:15:01] Speaker 03:
But re-registers is a little vague.

[00:15:04] Speaker 03:
Re-registers could easily encompass embodiment in which you're sending a message to your old base station.

[00:15:10] Speaker 03:
The old base station sends you a acknowledgement message, thereby clearing the way for you to now re-communicate and send data to the old base station.

[00:15:21] Speaker 03:
So re-register, it's not so clear to me, is

[00:15:26] Speaker 03:
answers the question in the same way that the sentence in column five does.

[00:15:30] Speaker 02:
So I've looked at the specification, Your Honor, for that point.

[00:15:34] Speaker 02:
And when it talks about registering in terms of what the mobile station does, there's no indication that there needs to be or is a response from the base station back to the mobile station.

[00:15:45] Speaker 02:
As used in the specification, that term seems to refer to the mobile station sending a message to the base station to establish a connection.

[00:15:53] Speaker 02:
I do agree that there could be,

[00:15:55] Speaker 02:
an acknowledgment message back.

[00:15:57] Speaker 02:
But as the word register and re-register is used in the specification, I think the more reasonable reading is that the mobile station just sends a message.

[00:16:06] Speaker 02:
What in the specification is so decisive about that?

[00:16:10] Speaker 02:
So if we look, for example, in column one, your honor, and I will point you to line 42, where we're talking about non-network supported handover,

[00:16:22] Speaker 02:
When registering at the new base station, the mobile station itself is responsible for ensuring that all link parameter settings and link settings are modified.

[00:16:31] Speaker 02:
There's also a reference to registering in that same column if I can find it.

[00:16:48] Speaker 02:
Oh, yes, I'm sorry.

[00:16:49] Speaker 02:
It's at line 39.

[00:16:51] Speaker 02:
The mobile station registers handover at the old base station, which then performs the search for a suitable new base station.

[00:16:58] Speaker 02:
I don't think that those passages necessarily are just positive, Your Honor.

[00:17:01] Speaker 02:
But what I do think is that they show that registering is referring to a base station action and not necessarily something that is confirmed by the mobile station.

[00:17:11] Speaker 02:
But this, oh, I'm sorry.

[00:17:12] Speaker 00:
I was just going to ask you, do you think we're here on appeal from the PTAP?

[00:17:19] Speaker 00:
and the broadest reasonable interpretation standard applies.

[00:17:22] Speaker 00:
Do you think that that matters in a case where you're looking for corresponding structure in a specification?

[00:17:29] Speaker 00:
Is there a broadest reasonable construction of the corresponding structure?

[00:17:32] Speaker 00:
How do we take that standard into account today?

[00:17:37] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, I do believe that that is relevant, because this specification is not a paragon of clarity, necessarily.

[00:17:43] Speaker 02:
But if we look at some of the plain statements, including what is in

[00:17:46] Speaker 02:
column five at lines 10 through 12.

[00:17:48] Speaker 03:
Well, just to follow up on Judge Stoll's question.

[00:17:51] Speaker 03:
Yes, your honor.

[00:17:51] Speaker 03:
Are you aware of an opinion from this court that says when it comes to identifying what is the corresponding structure for a given means plus function limitation, you should read the specification with the broadest reasonable interpretation in mind.

[00:18:09] Speaker 02:
I'm not aware of any specific opinion that I could cite to the court.

[00:18:12] Speaker 02:
I think that our briefing does refer to a few instances where

[00:18:15] Speaker 02:
If there is alternative corresponding structure that's disclosed in the specification, any of that structure counts as corresponding structure.

[00:18:22] Speaker 03:
But that's not this situation.

[00:18:23] Speaker 03:
The situation we have in front of us is the potential of ambiguity here in trying to figure out should what is stated in column five be reconciled with column six to be all referring to the same thing.

[00:18:40] Speaker 03:
Or should we understand what's being discussed in column five as being yet a different embodiment than what is disclosed in column six?

[00:18:49] Speaker 03:
And so with that ambiguity, potentially one could use the broadest reasonable interpretation and say, well, it's less than clear.

[00:18:57] Speaker 03:
But I suppose it's reasonable to say that there are two embodiments, because that would be the broader way of understanding what is the corresponding structures for this means plus function limitation.

[00:19:09] Speaker 03:
But I don't know if this court has ever used BRI in that particular manner.

[00:19:15] Speaker 03:
And as far as I'm hearing from you, I don't think you know either.

[00:19:19] Speaker 02:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:19:20] Speaker 02:
I don't have a case that I could cite to you today.

[00:19:22] Speaker 03:
So your cases in your Red Reef don't speak to this?

[00:19:25] Speaker 02:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:19:28] Speaker 02:
What I will say is in terms of the intrinsic record, if we look at column five and column six together, I agree with my colleague that context is important.

[00:19:37] Speaker 02:
What is described in column five, the fact that if there is an unsuccessful handover, the mobile station can reactivate the link by sending a simple message, that is inconsistent with each of figures four, five, and six.

[00:19:53] Speaker 02:
Figure four describes a successful handover, not one in which a link is reactivated.

[00:19:58] Speaker 02:
Figure five is about reestablishing a link when the base station gives permission and acknowledgment message

[00:20:06] Speaker 02:
after the mobile station has requested it.

[00:20:08] Speaker 00:
You agree, though, that the mobile station then does send an acknowledgment message in Figure 5, right?

[00:20:13] Speaker 00:
It's message 409?

[00:20:17] Speaker 02:
The base station, Your Honor, the first base station.

[00:20:20] Speaker 00:
They're trying to make the verb, so it's all the actions by the mobile station.

[00:20:24] Speaker 00:
So the mobile station receiving the acknowledgment message is the thing that creates the final reactivation.

[00:20:32] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:20:32] Speaker 02:
Well, that's another reason why I think the two algorithms are different.

[00:20:36] Speaker 02:
In column six, we're talking about a mobile station that says to the first base station, I'd like to come back.

[00:20:42] Speaker 02:
The language in the specification itself says, let me point you to the line.

[00:20:49] Speaker 02:
In column six here, starting at line 37, there's a message that gets sent to the first base station indicating that the mobile station wants to maintain the link, a desire to maintain the link.

[00:21:02] Speaker 02:
And then it's up to the base station.

[00:21:04] Speaker 02:
Will it acknowledge that and allow the reestablishment?

[00:21:08] Speaker 02:
To me, the meaning of that and the description and the specification is different than in column five, where it's the mobile station who sends one simple message to reactivate the link.

[00:21:21] Speaker 03:
So I understand what the Appellance Council was saying this morning, is that the embodiments described in the specification talk about the use and need for a timer.

[00:21:33] Speaker 03:
And so the acknowledgement message is critical for the mobile station's ability to start transmitting data back to the old base station.

[00:21:45] Speaker 03:
because the mobile station doesn't know if the timer's run out.

[00:21:50] Speaker 03:
And if the timer's run out, then it can't send any more data.

[00:21:54] Speaker 03:
Only when it gets the OK message from the old base station does it know, OK, I've successfully reestablished a link within the time that I've been given.

[00:22:08] Speaker 03:
And so therefore, the acknowledged message from the old base station is, in fact, a part of reestablishing the link to be able to send more data from the mobile station.

[00:22:18] Speaker 03:
What's your response to that?

[00:22:20] Speaker 02:
Well, first, Your Honor.

[00:22:21] Speaker 02:
a formal acknowledgment message isn't necessary.

[00:22:25] Speaker 02:
All of the prior art, including the four references that HTC has relied on, when there's an unsuccessful handover and the mobile station contacts the first base station, the two just begin sending data back and forth.

[00:22:36] Speaker 02:
There's not a formal acknowledgment message.

[00:22:39] Speaker 02:
So that's not something that's required.

[00:22:40] Speaker 02:
And the mobile station will know that the reestablishment or the reactivation has occurred

[00:22:45] Speaker 02:
because the data communication continues between the two constituents.

[00:22:49] Speaker 03:
So I understand the patent owner's argument about its specification.

[00:22:54] Speaker 03:
It's arguing that its specification requires the acknowledge message before the mobile station can start sending data to the old base station.

[00:23:05] Speaker 02:
So in response to that, I would point back to the portions of the specification that don't say anything about an acknowledgement message.

[00:23:14] Speaker 02:
column 5 at lines 10 through 12, column 7 at lines 50 through 52.

[00:23:20] Speaker 02:
And one word with respect to the difference between reactivation and reestablishment.

[00:23:26] Speaker 02:
When the mobile station reactivates the link, it's merely taking a channel that was dormant, that was not in use, and it sends a message across that channel.

[00:23:36] Speaker 02:
When that message gets sent, it is active because there's data that's been sent across it.

[00:23:41] Speaker 02:
It doesn't matter if the base station

[00:23:43] Speaker 02:
has acknowledged that, necessarily, because the link is already reactivated.

[00:23:47] Speaker 02:
It could be rejected later, but that's what's suggested by the word reactivated, as opposed to the word reestablished, which requires the base station to give permission.

[00:24:01] Speaker 02:
So, Your Honors, let me just point to a couple of other points.

[00:24:06] Speaker 02:
Dr. Kotzen mentioned was made of HTC's expert Dr. Kotzen.

[00:24:10] Speaker 02:
And I just want to be crystal clear that Dr. Kotzen did not accept or endorse the construction that IPCOM had identified.

[00:24:19] Speaker 02:
He disagreed with it.

[00:24:20] Speaker 02:
What he did do was to evaluate the prior art in light of that three-step construction for the corresponding structure, and also in light of IPCOM's infringement contentions in some corresponding district court litigation.

[00:24:34] Speaker 00:
Do you have a record site for where he disagreed?

[00:24:36] Speaker 02:
Oh, yes, Your Honor, I do.

[00:24:40] Speaker 02:
So if we go to appendix at page 12,778.

[00:25:09] Speaker 02:
And also on the previous page is where Dr. Kotzen describes how he's approaching the corresponding structure in terms of looking at the infringement contentions in the corresponding litigation.

[00:25:24] Speaker 02:
One other point, Your Honor, that I want to make sure that I get to is there was made mention in the briefs that HTC had not identified and the prior art did not disclose any specific acknowledgment message that went back from the base station

[00:25:39] Speaker 02:
to the mobile station.

[00:25:40] Speaker 02:
If you look at the corresponding structure that IPCOM has proposed, the third step requires, and I'm reading this from the gray brief on page five, receiving a message from the first base station.

[00:25:53] Speaker 02:
What HTC has pointed to in the record is that in the prior art, there is no specific acknowledgement message, but there is a resumption of communication.

[00:26:04] Speaker 02:
In other words, the base station

[00:26:06] Speaker 02:
sends data packets, sends messages over to the mobile station when the communications resume.

[00:26:11] Speaker 02:
Under IPCOM's own infringement contentions in the district court litigation, that is reactivation.

[00:26:18] Speaker 02:
That's the same thing that IPCOM pointed to as a acknowledgment message.

[00:26:23] Speaker 02:
And besides that, I'll just give one example to the court of the PACS reference.

[00:26:30] Speaker 02:
And I'll point the court to appendix

[00:26:34] Speaker 02:
13,976.

[00:26:35] Speaker 02:
The PACS reference talks about a subscriber unit, a mobile station, that goes from one radio port to a second radio port.

[00:26:47] Speaker 02:
It's transferred.

[00:26:48] Speaker 02:
That's the handover.

[00:26:50] Speaker 02:
If that transfer is unsuccessful or denied, as described at the very bottom of appendix 13,976, it says, the subscriber unit will resume the conversation on the old link

[00:27:04] Speaker 02:
and return to the ALT permitted state.

[00:27:08] Speaker 02:
Turn back a couple of pages to appendix 13974.

[00:27:10] Speaker 02:
And this flow diagram shows a subscriber unit in the ALT permitted state.

[00:27:19] Speaker 02:
There's a description at the top of the page that the subscriber unit is tuned to the old base station.

[00:27:25] Speaker 02:
It has already gone back after an unsuccessful handover attempt.

[00:27:29] Speaker 02:
And there are two messages that are identified in this flow diagram.

[00:27:33] Speaker 02:
that the first base station sends to the subscriber unit specific messages after it has returned.

[00:27:39] Speaker 02:
There's the ALT underscore EXEC message and the perform underscore TST message.

[00:27:46] Speaker 02:
So there are specific messages in the prior art that are sent from the first base station back to the mobile station if a handover is unsuccessful.

[00:27:56] Speaker 02:
And that is what we would point out to the board

[00:28:01] Speaker 02:
if the court were to agree with IPCOM's construction and remand.

[00:28:06] Speaker 02:
Unless the court has any further questions, I'm happy to stand on HTC's briefs.

[00:28:11] Speaker 02:
OK, thank you.

[00:28:12] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:28:17] Speaker 03:
Mr. Reed, you still have a little bit of time left.

[00:28:23] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:28:25] Speaker 01:
The specification here has only one reactivation algorithm.

[00:28:30] Speaker 01:
It's shown in figure five.

[00:28:32] Speaker 01:
It's the three steps described in the specification.

[00:28:34] Speaker 01:
So under the broadest reasonable interpretation, it's the only reasonable construction here is to identify that algorithm that's clearly set forth as the corresponding one.

[00:28:49] Speaker 00:
Can I ask you on claim 18?

[00:28:52] Speaker 00:
Is there a claim differentiation argument here on the arrangement for sending a handover query?

[00:28:59] Speaker 00:
That language that was added to amend the claim 18 seems to talk about sending a message from the base station to the mobile station.

[00:29:11] Speaker 00:
Does that make it so that your argument with respect to what the arrangement includes

[00:29:18] Speaker 00:
It goes too far because it's under claimed differentiation.

[00:29:23] Speaker 00:
Are you following my argument?

[00:29:25] Speaker 01:
Are you referring to the arrangement?

[00:29:26] Speaker 00:
I'm referring to the arrangement language that was added during the amendment, the language that was added to the claim just above the arrangement language during the amendment process.

[00:29:38] Speaker 01:
That additional language is relating to a forced handover.

[00:29:45] Speaker 01:
So there's an arrangement for sending a forced handover message to the mobile station, forcing that mobile station to search for a new base station.

[00:29:57] Speaker 01:
And a handover query, I don't believe that that affects the interpretation of the reactivating.

[00:30:03] Speaker 00:
So that doesn't apply to the situation where the second base station says, no, I'm not going to be able to provide connect to you, so you don't have to go back to the first base station?

[00:30:14] Speaker 01:
I see that I'm over my time.

[00:30:15] Speaker 01:
May I respond?

[00:30:16] Speaker 00:
Just answer my question.

[00:30:17] Speaker 01:
Sure.

[00:30:18] Speaker 01:
Yeah, so I believe this is a narrower claim that is addressed specifically to that forced handover situation, whereas claim one may be broader than that.

[00:30:28] Speaker 01:
It may apply to additional situations.

[00:30:30] Speaker 01:
But I don't believe that the difference between those claims affects the interpretation of the arrangement for reactivating.

[00:30:37] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:30:39] Speaker 01:
Thank you.