[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
18-17-99, TQ Delta, LLC against DISH Network, LLC.

[00:00:07] Speaker 03:
Mr. Chipmunker.

[00:00:15] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the Court.

[00:00:19] Speaker 01:
The Board's finding that the claims are unpatentable must be reversed.

[00:00:22] Speaker 01:
The Board committed at least two errors in finding the claims unpatentable.

[00:00:26] Speaker 02:
On page 30 of the Blueprint,

[00:00:28] Speaker 02:
You say that the definition, which you provide from the Merriam-Webster dictionary without needing to initialize and then picking up the quoting, does not suggest the absence or lack of only a part of something.

[00:00:46] Speaker 02:
Where is that in the record?

[00:00:51] Speaker 01:
This is not in the record.

[00:00:52] Speaker 01:
We put in the definition of without in the appeal brief because the construction of without needing to reinitialize was never at issue below.

[00:01:02] Speaker 02:
So it wasn't raised before the board?

[00:01:06] Speaker 01:
The parties agreed that without needing to reinitialize, in the petition and in Paranormal's response, the parties agreed that without needing to reinitialize means avoiding all the steps of initialization.

[00:01:17] Speaker 01:
It's only at the final written decision stage that the board adopted a construction that said that without needing to reinitialize means... Boy, I didn't read the record that way.

[00:01:27] Speaker 02:
You're saying the parties agreed below that

[00:01:30] Speaker 01:
that it included all steps?

[00:01:33] Speaker 01:
Without needing to reinitialize meant avoiding all steps of initialization.

[00:01:38] Speaker 03:
Where did the parties agree to this?

[00:01:42] Speaker 01:
Dishes expert Dr. Huarti

[00:01:48] Speaker 01:
When he applied the Bowie reference to the claim, he said that Bowie's teaching teaches the fact that you negate doing any notion of initialization.

[00:01:57] Speaker 01:
The question is, where did the parties agree to this?

[00:02:00] Speaker 01:
There was a tacit agreement, Your Honor.

[00:02:02] Speaker 01:
We litigated tacit.

[00:02:07] Speaker 01:
There was no dispute based on the petition that the parties agreed that without needing to re-initialize meant avoiding all the steps of initialization.

[00:02:13] Speaker 01:
That's what the patent claimed.

[00:02:15] Speaker 02:
As opposed to avoiding any one step.

[00:02:18] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:02:18] Speaker 01:
The patent specification is very clear.

[00:02:21] Speaker 01:
It says when a device comes out of... Well, let me ask you this.

[00:02:28] Speaker 02:
On page 37 of the Red Brief,

[00:02:31] Speaker 02:
This says, quote, because the 404 patent does not require storing all of the parameters during the first initialization, the transceiver of the 404 patent must perform at least some reinitialization steps to determine the missing parameters that are required for reliable communications.

[00:02:53] Speaker 02:
And it cites to the 404 patent at columns 8, column 8, lines 1 to 13.

[00:02:58] Speaker 02:
They also say, at page 37 in the Red Great, that suggesting otherwise would mean that the 404th Hatton's transceiver skips the reinitialization, but risk having less, and likely much less, than reliable communications.

[00:03:17] Speaker 02:
Do you agree with, do you disagree with any of that?

[00:03:20] Speaker 01:
Yes, we do.

[00:03:21] Speaker 01:
And the reason we disagree with it is because in column 8 at line 5, it says, on waking up from sleep mode, the CPE transceiver can begin transmitting immediately.

[00:03:32] Speaker 01:
It says immediately, which means you cannot be performing any steps of initialization.

[00:03:37] Speaker 02:
On page 27 of the PTAB's opinion, the PTAB says, your argument, and I'm quoting, your argument is predicated on a mischaracterization of Boeing.

[00:03:49] Speaker 02:
And that, again, I'm quoting, council argued at the hearing that Boeing uses may only to mean permitted at a point in time.

[00:03:59] Speaker 02:
Each example may not occur.

[00:04:02] Speaker 02:
But that is not persuasive because Boeing uses may to mean might or may or may not.

[00:04:10] Speaker 02:
Is that true?

[00:04:12] Speaker 01:
what the PTAB says.

[00:04:13] Speaker 01:
It's not true in view of Dish's expert testimony when he was deposed.

[00:04:18] Speaker 01:
Mr. Hoarty said the teachings of Bowie clearly state that Bowie does reinitialization every time.

[00:04:24] Speaker 02:
If it's not true, at 28th of the PTAB's opinion, the PTAB says that you argue, quote, Bowie does not teach without, does not teach in an internal quote, without needing to reinitialize closed internal quotes.

[00:04:41] Speaker 02:
because some re-initialization does occur when Bowie exits low power mode and resumes full power mode.

[00:04:49] Speaker 02:
Does Bowie teach

[00:04:51] Speaker 02:
that the additional handshaking may be required?

[00:04:54] Speaker 02:
Or does it teach that loop characteristics are redetermined upon the Bowie device coming out of low power mode?

[00:05:01] Speaker 01:
Yes, it teaches redetermining loop characteristics on coming out of low power mode every time.

[00:05:06] Speaker 01:
And then it goes on to state it may do additional handshaking.

[00:05:10] Speaker 01:
But at a bare minimum, the Bowie device, when it comes out of its low power mode, always redetermines loop characteristics.

[00:05:18] Speaker 01:
It always does, and then it may do some additional handshaking.

[00:05:21] Speaker 01:
That's what the Bowie pattern says.

[00:05:24] Speaker 03:
But Bowie also specifies that loop characteristics are stored.

[00:05:30] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:05:31] Speaker 03:
Why store if they have to re-characterize or re-compute?

[00:05:35] Speaker 01:
Because the loop characteristics change because of things like temperature.

[00:05:38] Speaker 01:
You have a better starting point.

[00:05:40] Speaker 01:
When you store your loop characteristics, you have a better starting point, so you can reduce the time it takes to re-determine your loop characteristics.

[00:05:48] Speaker 03:
If the stored characteristics are acceptable, then you don't need to re-compute.

[00:05:54] Speaker 03:
But the only way to find out why they do that?

[00:05:56] Speaker 01:
The only way to determine that your loop characteristics have changed is to re-determine loop characteristics.

[00:06:02] Speaker 01:
How do you know if the phone line characters have changed unless you don't re-determine it?

[00:06:06] Speaker 02:
Does Bowie teach that additional handshaking is required in all instances of exiting low-power mode?

[00:06:13] Speaker 01:
Additional handshaking may be required, but the prior step, which is doing the basic handshaking, is always required.

[00:06:19] Speaker 01:
It says it reduces the time for doing that.

[00:06:23] Speaker 01:
Does that include all the steps?

[00:06:26] Speaker 01:
Yes, that does.

[00:06:27] Speaker 01:
That is our position.

[00:06:29] Speaker 01:
It includes all the steps.

[00:06:33] Speaker 01:
Then what's the point of BOE?

[00:06:35] Speaker 01:
The point of BOE is it shortens the time it takes to return to full power mode, and it shortens it by storing these loop characteristics and using those as an initial estimate to reduce the time it takes to characterize the loop.

[00:06:51] Speaker 01:
That's how BOE saves time.

[00:06:57] Speaker 02:
The PTAP says at J 30 to 31 that you argued that quote, the 404 patent discloses never performing reinitialization.

[00:07:08] Speaker 02:
Is that still your position?

[00:07:10] Speaker 02:
Can you repeat your question, Your Honor?

[00:07:12] Speaker 02:
Okay, sorry.

[00:07:13] Speaker 02:
At 30 and 31, in their opinion, DTAB says that you argue that, quote, the 404 patent discloses never performing reinitialization.

[00:07:24] Speaker 02:
Is that your position still?

[00:07:26] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:07:27] Speaker 02:
At column 8, lines 24 to 35, it discloses that, quote, reinitialization must be performed, steps 104 and 108, before user data transmission occurs.

[00:07:42] Speaker 01:
Craig?

[00:07:44] Speaker 01:
No, what it says is, in certain situations, BoE may come up, transmit a few test frames, which means it's in full power mode.

[00:07:52] Speaker 01:
It's not done any initialization.

[00:07:54] Speaker 01:
It transmits a few test frames.

[00:07:56] Speaker 01:
If the test frames are successfully received, it can start transmitting user data.

[00:08:01] Speaker 01:
If the test frames are not successfully received, then it may have to do reinitialization.

[00:08:05] Speaker 01:
But the transmission of test frames happens in full power mode.

[00:08:09] Speaker 01:
And it gets there by avoiding all the steps of reinitialization.

[00:08:17] Speaker 02:
Does BOE teaching that its loop is inactive during low-power mode imply that all circuitry must be shut off during low-power mode to achieve its purpose?

[00:08:28] Speaker 01:
All circuitry in BOE is shut off except for the idle signal detector, I believe, that is there to detect the wake-up signal.

[00:08:37] Speaker 02:
So BOE does recognize there's need for some circuitry to remain on?

[00:08:42] Speaker 02:
Yes, but yes.

[00:08:47] Speaker 01:
So, getting back to my prepared argument, the board committed at least two errors in finding the claims unpalatable.

[00:08:57] Speaker 01:
First, the board adopted an incorrect construction for the claim term without needing to reinitialize and found that Bowie taught without needing to reinitialize.

[00:09:05] Speaker 01:
Second, the board's obviousness conclusion is wrong because the board discarded competent expert testimony and evidence that showed that the combination of references would result in an inoperable device.

[00:09:16] Speaker 01:
Specifically, the device, if you combine Bowie with Wanselheim, would not have a low-power mode.

[00:09:22] Speaker 01:
These errors appear at Appendix 29 and Appendix 33 of the final written decision.

[00:09:28] Speaker 01:
Both of these errors invite de novo review.

[00:09:31] Speaker 01:
On the issue of claim construction, claim six recites in relevant part exit from the low-power mode and without needing to reinitialize the transceiver.

[00:09:40] Speaker 01:
The board interpreted the limitation without needing to re-initialize and found the limitation was satisfied if any step is avoided and does not require that every step of initialization be avoided.

[00:09:51] Speaker 01:
This construction is clearly erroneous because it conflicts with the plain meaning of the phrase what it means to without needing to re-initialize and the disclosure of the 404 patent.

[00:10:01] Speaker 01:
Without needing to re-initialize means avoiding all steps of initialization.

[00:10:05] Speaker 01:
As the patent explains, the invention allowed a DSL modem to return to full power mode without re-initialization.

[00:10:11] Speaker 01:
And I quote, the CP transceiver can begin transmitting immediately.

[00:10:16] Speaker 01:
The court should reverse the board's construction.

[00:10:19] Speaker 01:
Further, the board's construction contradicted, and we went over this, contradicted the party's tacit understanding that without leading to reinitialized means, avoiding all steps of initialization.

[00:10:29] Speaker 01:
The board instituted the IPR based on this understanding.

[00:10:32] Speaker 01:
That's at Appendix 229.

[00:10:34] Speaker 01:
Dish's expert, Mr. Hardy, stated this expressly at Appendix 571.

[00:10:38] Speaker 02:
What is the evidence in the record of the existence of a tacit understanding?

[00:10:44] Speaker 01:
They applied the Bowie reference, when they applied Bowie to the claim, they said, Dish said, Bowie negates doing any step of initialization.

[00:10:53] Speaker 01:
You determine the scope of the prior art when you apply it to the claim during the obviousness inquiry.

[00:11:02] Speaker 01:
Clearly, because they said Bowie negates doing any step of initialization, Dish assumed that that means, without needing to initialize, means avoiding all steps of initialization.

[00:11:21] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:11:23] Speaker 03:
Are we ready to hear from the other side?

[00:11:25] Speaker 01:
I have one more point to make.

[00:11:29] Speaker 01:
That goes to the issue of there's no motivation to combine.

[00:11:33] Speaker 01:
We provided expert testimony that said, if you combine Bowie with Wanselheim, you will end up with a device that doesn't have a low-power mode.

[00:11:41] Speaker 01:
The claim requires a low-power mode.

[00:11:43] Speaker 01:
Our expert, Dr. Krishan, put in about four pages of detailed technical explanation as to why Bowie when combined with Wanselheim would result in an inoperable device.

[00:11:54] Speaker 01:
DISH did not have a reply expert declaration.

[00:11:58] Speaker 01:
The board on its own set aside TQ Delta's expert testimony and played a role of the expert and said, we do not believe that what TQ Delta's expert says is persuasive.

[00:12:12] Speaker 01:
Instead, we are going to apply our own understanding of why the device would be operable.

[00:12:18] Speaker 01:
That's clearly improper.

[00:12:23] Speaker 02:
dishes replied.

[00:12:31] Speaker 01:
Yes, but they have to view the evidence.

[00:12:34] Speaker 01:
They have to view evidence that detracts from the decision as well as supports the decision.

[00:12:38] Speaker 01:
There was no evidence from the other side that supported the decision that you would combine these and get a device that would actually work.

[00:12:46] Speaker 01:
The only evidence of record was the evidence that TQ Delta put in that detracts from the ultimate finding of obviousness.

[00:12:55] Speaker 01:
And it's pretty well established in this court that in the context of a contested case, it is impermissible for the board to base its factual findings on its expertise rather than evidence and record.

[00:13:06] Speaker 02:
All there was... You realize you're using up your response time.

[00:13:13] Speaker ?:
Okay.

[00:13:13] Speaker 00:
We'll save you a response time.

[00:13:20] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:13:21] Speaker 00:
Keefe.

[00:13:22] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:13:25] Speaker 00:
Your honor, what we're hearing... Was there a tacit understanding?

[00:13:27] Speaker 00:
There was not, your honor.

[00:13:29] Speaker 00:
In fact, quite the opposite.

[00:13:31] Speaker 00:
What Dish did when it applied Bowie was it found that even under the narrowest construction, that being that no real initialization may occur.

[00:13:41] Speaker 00:
that Bowie disclosed it, because Bowie disclosed embodiments in which absolutely no handshaking, no reinitialization information occurs whatsoever.

[00:13:51] Speaker 00:
This is an argument that the appellant has made over and over again down at the board.

[00:13:56] Speaker 00:
They constantly said that the word may engage in additional handshaking meant must.

[00:14:01] Speaker 00:
The board rejected that argument absolutely with substantial evidence.

[00:14:07] Speaker 02:
They stated it was a mischaracterization.

[00:14:09] Speaker 00:
They did, Your Honor.

[00:14:10] Speaker 00:
And in fact, they said in detail why it was a mischaracterization.

[00:14:14] Speaker 00:
In the appendix at pages 25 through 27, they actually explained why may meant might or might not.

[00:14:25] Speaker 00:
And they specifically pointed to the section in Bowie, column 6, that indicated when handshaking might occur.

[00:14:33] Speaker 00:
Maybe when temperatures have changed when situations change you might need to handshake that implies otherwise you do not and that's what the board used as a factual finding then when it turned in page 28 of the appendix and page 29 etc to the specific limitation of without need for reinitialization it referred back to its original discussion on pages 27 25 through 27 of exactly why might

[00:15:02] Speaker 00:
meant may or may not, not must.

[00:15:06] Speaker 00:
And that is supported not only by the facts of Bowie itself, which the board cites to, but the board also cites to the petitioner's reply at pages 13, 15, and 16, which also cite to the expert declaration.

[00:15:21] Speaker 00:
Therefore, the board had substantial evidence to support its finding that Bowie discloses never reinitializing.

[00:15:30] Speaker 00:
One of the other things that I think confuses everyone in this case is the fact that this is a negative limitation.

[00:15:37] Speaker 00:
The limitation requires that you are allowed to return to your startup mode, return to full power, without the need for reinitialization.

[00:15:46] Speaker 00:
When the board did its secondary argument on pages 29 and 30 of the appendix, what the board was simply saying is, I am now going to look at your secondary argument.

[00:15:58] Speaker 00:
In your secondary argument, TQ Delta, you say, well, as long as you do one of the things, you're not avoiding the whole thing.

[00:16:06] Speaker 00:
The best analogy I can come up with is someone telling me that I can eat lunch as long as I eat lunch without eating a sandwich.

[00:16:15] Speaker 00:
And the sandwich has lots of layers to it.

[00:16:16] Speaker 00:
It has tomatoes, lettuce, bacon, and bread.

[00:16:19] Speaker 00:
Well, I decide that I'm dieting and so I'm going to simply remove the lettuce from the sandwich and I'm going to eat only the lettuce.

[00:16:26] Speaker 00:
No one would understand me to have eaten the sandwich.

[00:16:29] Speaker 00:
And that is exactly what the board is saying.

[00:16:32] Speaker 00:
That the normal understanding of, without needing to do,

[00:16:35] Speaker 00:
this whole thing, this reinitialization, if you're only doing one of the things, you're not doing the whole step.

[00:16:42] Speaker 00:
So the board is actually applying exactly what TQ Delta had said throughout the course of the entire proceeding, which is all means all.

[00:16:49] Speaker 00:
And in fact, throughout its briefing, in the blue brief, for example, at page... I'd like you to address

[00:16:57] Speaker 02:
the questions I asked your closing counsel.

[00:16:59] Speaker 02:
Please.

[00:17:00] Speaker 02:
About column 8 of the 404 statute.

[00:17:06] Speaker 00:
Absolutely, Your Honor.

[00:17:08] Speaker 02:
We believe that column 8, and in fact the- And specifically what I'm interested in is what I underlined, which is the words, re-initialization must be performed preceded by otherwise.

[00:17:18] Speaker 00:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:17:19] Speaker 00:
And so what they're saying in the 404 patent itself is they're saying there may be instances, there may be times when you do need to reinitialize.

[00:17:27] Speaker 00:
For example, the test ping said, I'm different.

[00:17:31] Speaker 00:
I have changed exactly what's going on with me, so I need to start over again as well.

[00:17:36] Speaker 00:
This is exactly the same situation that happens in the Bowie pattern in column 6, lines 38 through 40, which is appendix 1184.

[00:17:46] Speaker 00:
There, what Bowie is saying is, for example, if you've tested and you found that the temperature changes, you may need to do additional handshaking.

[00:17:55] Speaker 00:
Start over.

[00:17:56] Speaker 00:
That is no different from anything that's happening in the 404 pattern in column 8.

[00:18:00] Speaker 00:
And that exactly means that the two patterns

[00:18:03] Speaker 00:
are accomplishing exactly the same thing in exactly the same way.

[00:18:07] Speaker 00:
I will store information.

[00:18:09] Speaker 00:
I'll check to make sure nothing's changed.

[00:18:11] Speaker 00:
If nothing's changed, I'll use that information.

[00:18:13] Speaker 00:
If things have changed, I'll go back to zero and start over, and thereby saving time, saving power, which is what both patents do and what both patents attempt to accomplish.

[00:18:23] Speaker 00:
The last point raised by my Learned Opposing Council was that there was no evidence in the record to support the combination with Van Zeelighem.

[00:18:31] Speaker 00:
Van Zeelighem and Bowie are combinable.

[00:18:34] Speaker 00:
The only argument that appellants have made is that there is one potential possible situation in which you might end up with competing frequencies.

[00:18:45] Speaker 00:
But as the board specifically held, that's not enough.

[00:18:50] Speaker 00:
One of ordinary skill in the art has to be one of ordinary creativity.

[00:18:53] Speaker 00:
one of ordinary creativity looking at the situation, realizing that Benzilgahem says, if I send my pilot signal in at 16 hertz, great, I know exactly what that signal is going to be.

[00:19:05] Speaker 00:
Bowie says, I'm going to send that signal, that synchronization signal, anywhere above 4 hertz.

[00:19:11] Speaker 00:
In fact, it could even be an additional signal.

[00:19:14] Speaker 00:
And this is all in the Bowie reference in column two at appendix 1182, where Bowie says the resume signal may be an AC signal greater than four kilohertz or maybe a multi-tone AC signal.

[00:19:29] Speaker 00:
Therefore, one of ordinary skill, using ordinary creativity, would understand that there's a wide range other than 16 Hertz that can be utilized in a combination of Bowie and van Zielegahem.

[00:19:40] Speaker 00:
And that's what the board found when it rejected the argument that there is one possible scenario in which there might be incompatibility.

[00:19:48] Speaker 02:
Talk about the interplay of the ANSI standard as well, because it overlaps everybody.

[00:19:55] Speaker 00:
You mean the standard that the ADSL, it does, it overlaps everything, which means that one of ordinary skill would understand everything about ADSL to understand that there is a wide range of frequencies that can be used.

[00:20:07] Speaker 00:
And therefore, again, using one of ordinary creativity who understands how ADSL works, he would understand

[00:20:14] Speaker 00:
that he doesn't have to use just 16 kilohertz.

[00:20:17] Speaker 00:
And their expert didn't even say this is the only way that it would work.

[00:20:20] Speaker 00:
He said there might be a possibility of a coincidence.

[00:20:26] Speaker 00:
Sorry about that.

[00:20:28] Speaker 00:
But that's not enough to teach away.

[00:20:30] Speaker 00:
In fact, quite the opposite was found by the board and the substantial evidence of Bowie itself saying I can use multiple frequencies.

[00:20:37] Speaker 00:
The ANSI standard, which was also in the combination,

[00:20:42] Speaker 00:
Making everyone understand that there are multiple frequencies that can be used and then the teaching of Manzieligaham that says and be careful I'm going to do my resume signal at 16.

[00:20:51] Speaker 00:
It actually helps the combination because it specifically tells you what to avoid If your honors have no other questions We very much appreciate your time and attention.

[00:21:01] Speaker 03:
Thank you

[00:21:13] Speaker 01:
At appendix 4411.

[00:21:15] Speaker 01:
4411.

[00:21:34] Speaker 01:
At appendix 4411.

[00:21:36] Speaker 01:
4411.

[00:21:37] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:21:41] Speaker 01:
This is a transcript from the deposition of William Leo Huarty, Dish's expert.

[00:21:48] Speaker 01:
He was asked, you do not contest that Bowie teaches merely reducing the time needed to determine loop characteristics, and this is initialization.

[00:21:57] Speaker 01:
I can only agree that that is what it says.

[00:22:00] Speaker 01:
Question, Bowie does not teach, don't re-determine loop characteristics.

[00:22:05] Speaker 01:
answer.

[00:22:06] Speaker 01:
I think a posita would know if he were to teach that that would be incorrect and it could not function as a circuit and one would not put this one would not learn from this patent if that was stated because it's not possible to do that.

[00:22:21] Speaker 01:
This is own expert conceded that Bowie reinitializes every time.

[00:22:28] Speaker 01:
It redetermines loop characteristics every time.

[00:22:32] Speaker 01:
There isn't a case where Bowie doesn't redetermine loop characteristics.

[00:22:37] Speaker 03:
I think you're reading a little bit into that brief statement.

[00:22:43] Speaker 01:
But move on, there are other points I think that might be important.

[00:22:47] Speaker 01:
Regarding the inoperability argument,

[00:22:50] Speaker 01:
Dicious council refers to the pilot signal.

[00:22:53] Speaker 01:
Our expert doesn't talk about the pilot signal.

[00:22:55] Speaker 01:
He says, Dr. Christian says the synchronization symbol, which is a wide band signal, which occupies the entire bandwidth, that's the one which would cause the inoperability issue.

[00:23:07] Speaker 01:
It's not the pilot signal that he said that would cause the inoperability.

[00:23:12] Speaker 01:
And this is set forth at

[00:23:15] Speaker 01:
appendix 4315.

[00:23:17] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry, 4315?

[00:23:19] Speaker 01:
Yes, 4315, all the way to appendix 4319.

[00:23:29] Speaker 01:
So we provided expert testimony that van Zylheim's synchronization symbol would cause the Bowie device to consistently keep waking up.

[00:23:39] Speaker 01:
Dish's attorney argument was, you can move the pilot signal somewhere else.

[00:23:44] Speaker 01:
These are like two ships passing in the night.

[00:23:47] Speaker 01:
Our experts said it's the synchronization symbol, which is a wideband signal, which occupies the entire bandwidth that comes every 69 frames that would cause the Bowie device to wake up.

[00:23:58] Speaker 01:
Dish's attorney argument focused on completely an issue that wasn't even raised.

[00:24:02] Speaker 01:
And the board took the lead with Dish's attorney argument and discarded TQ Delta's expert testimony on this point.

[00:24:13] Speaker 01:
And that's all I have your honor.

[00:24:14] Speaker 03:
On claim construction, the claim itself recites storing only one parameter, at least only one parameter.

[00:24:22] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:24:23] Speaker 03:
But your argument would require that all parameters be stored to avoid reinitiation, correct?

[00:24:32] Speaker 01:
The pattern does list the parameters that are required to be stored, but the claim does not have to cover every piece of the invention.

[00:24:43] Speaker 01:
It's not a picture claim.

[00:24:45] Speaker 03:
It's telling you that you need to store the bits and gains table, and you need to maintain synchronization, which is an important part of the... But if reinitiation means what you argue it means, you'd have to store them all, all the parameters, right?

[00:24:58] Speaker 01:
No, based on the bits and gain... Avoiding reinitiation?

[00:25:02] Speaker 01:
The bits and gains table is what is used to start transmitting data.

[00:25:07] Speaker 01:
And because you've saved the bits and gains table, you right away can adjust your amplifiers.

[00:25:13] Speaker 01:
You can right away set your bit loading for the carriers.

[00:25:16] Speaker 01:
And since you've already been maintaining synchronization during the low power mode, you can begin transmitting immediately without needing to reinitialize.

[00:25:29] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:25:29] Speaker ?:
Okay.

[00:25:32] Speaker 03:
So this case is submitted.