[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
Are we ready?

[00:00:03] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:00:03] Speaker 04:
The next argued case is number 191565, General Access Solutions Limited against United Patents LLC.

[00:00:12] Speaker 04:
Mr. Taylor, proceed.

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

[00:00:18] Speaker 00:
The PTAB majority erred by adopting an incorrect construction of the claim term wireless local area network transceiver in the 555 patent.

[00:00:30] Speaker 00:
The PTAB majority's construction effectively reads out the words local area network, especially the network part of that term.

[00:00:41] Speaker 00:
At the time of the invention of the 555 patent, a local area network or a LAN, for short, was a well-known term of art in the field as was a wireless LAN or a WLAN.

[00:00:55] Speaker 00:
As the specification teaches,

[00:00:58] Speaker 00:
A skilled artisan would have understood a LAN to mean a network that interconnects devices and allows them to communicate with one another on the LAN.

[00:01:10] Speaker 00:
As the dissenting judge, Judge Stevens, at the PEED tab put it succinctly at appendix page 56, a defining characteristic of a network is the ability for devices to communicate with each other within the network.

[00:01:25] Speaker 00:
that essential requirement is absent from the PTAB's construction, which makes it incorrect.

[00:01:32] Speaker 00:
Now with the correct construction of wireless local area network transceiver, the PTAB majority's decision should be reversed.

[00:01:41] Speaker 00:
The Hohenstein reference on which the PTAB majority relied does not disclose a WLAN transceiver,

[00:01:49] Speaker 00:
because it does not disclose the creation of a WLAN on which devices can communicate with each other without having to send signals into the larger network.

[00:02:00] Speaker 00:
We therefore respectfully request that this court reverse the PTAB majority's decision.

[00:02:07] Speaker 00:
Turning first to claim construction, the PTAB majority construed the term WLAN transceiver to mean, quote, a transceiver that transmits

[00:02:18] Speaker 00:
and receives wireless signals and defines a coverage area that is relatively small or geographically limited.

[00:02:26] Speaker 01:
Council, this is Judge Stoll.

[00:02:29] Speaker 01:
Earlier in your introduction, you said that the majority had read out the word wyland in transceiver.

[00:02:36] Speaker 01:
But in that definition you just read to us, didn't they include that it has to define a coverage area that is relatively small or geographically limited?

[00:02:45] Speaker 01:
Isn't that giving some meaning to the word wyland?

[00:02:48] Speaker 00:
I think it's giving... I apologize, Your Honor.

[00:02:52] Speaker 00:
I didn't mean to cut you off.

[00:02:53] Speaker 00:
Was there a second part to your question?

[00:02:55] Speaker 01:
No, there's not.

[00:02:56] Speaker 01:
Please proceed.

[00:02:58] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:02:59] Speaker 00:
It gives half of the meaning that's required for a WLAN.

[00:03:04] Speaker 00:
The patent teaches the specification and all the evidence about what the term

[00:03:08] Speaker 00:
was understood in the art to mean indicated that a WLAN had two essential components.

[00:03:14] Speaker 00:
The first is that it's geographically limited, and that is accounted for in the PTABS construction.

[00:03:20] Speaker 00:
But the second equally essential component of what a WLAN required is the network component, which is that it provides the ability for devices on the WLAN to communicate with each other on the network.

[00:03:36] Speaker 01:
That is the essential component.

[00:03:38] Speaker 01:
This is Judge Stoll again.

[00:03:40] Speaker 01:
I've read the claim language, and I've read the specification, and I don't see anything in either of those two pieces of intrinsic evidence that says that the devices need to be interconnected.

[00:03:55] Speaker 00:
I respectfully disagree, Your Honor.

[00:04:01] Speaker 00:
I would first, in terms of the specification, refer, Your Honor, to the background section of the patent.

[00:04:08] Speaker 00:
Column five lines, well, excuse me, in the background section in general, in column four, line 60 to 65, the patent teaches that WN is a well-known term of art in the field.

[00:04:23] Speaker 00:
And then further, at column five lines, I believe it's eight to 11, it teaches that an essential component of a local area network is the interconnection that I mentioned, and I'll just quote

[00:04:37] Speaker 00:
the language of the specification.

[00:04:38] Speaker 00:
It says, quote, in some such systems, the access points are coupled to a conventional local area network, also used to interconnect the processing stations of an office computer system.

[00:04:53] Speaker 01:
So what about the fact that it says in some such?

[00:04:56] Speaker 01:
I mean, that doesn't seem to be essential, then, that it says in some such.

[00:05:01] Speaker 00:
Well, Your Honor, I think the in some such systems is referring

[00:05:06] Speaker 00:
further up in the background section where it's talking about wireless communication systems generally.

[00:05:12] Speaker 00:
So in some such is not referring to local area networks, which comes later in the sentence.

[00:05:19] Speaker 00:
What the sentence says is that in some such systems, meaning wireless communication systems generally, the access points can be coupled to a conventional

[00:05:30] Speaker 00:
local area network also used to interconnect.

[00:05:34] Speaker 00:
So again, there in the background is teaching that when it comes to a local area network, the interconnection is an essential component of it.

[00:05:45] Speaker 00:
And again, Your Honor.

[00:05:47] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:05:48] Speaker 00:
Oh, I'm sorry, Your Honor.

[00:05:49] Speaker 01:
I was just going to ask if you thought this was your best evidence in the specification to support your position or do you have other

[00:05:57] Speaker 01:
other sections of the patent specification that you would like to identify for me?

[00:06:03] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:06:04] Speaker 00:
I'd also refer the court to the claims.

[00:06:08] Speaker 00:
The claims require that the local area network transceiver is in direct wireless broadband communication with a plurality of computing devices.

[00:06:18] Speaker 00:
So it teaches that the transceiver actually forms communication links with not one, but a plurality of devices.

[00:06:27] Speaker 00:
The specification teaches numerous times that those connections are wireless local area network LAN connections.

[00:06:37] Speaker 00:
Just for example, at column 8, lines 44 to 47, and column 9, lines 53 to 55.

[00:06:45] Speaker 00:
And then the specification also teaches that the invention provides, quote, WLAN service to the mobile devices in the coverage area.

[00:06:54] Speaker 00:
And that's taught at column 11.

[00:06:56] Speaker 00:
Lines 41 to 43.

[00:06:59] Speaker 01:
Can I interrupt you one more time?

[00:07:01] Speaker 01:
I just want to ask, I'm looking at the claim language you're referring to and also in the specification, it really seems to talk about the wireless local area network transceiver being in communication with a computing device within the land and then allowing it to communicate outside of the land to one of the best base stations.

[00:07:23] Speaker 01:
Am I incorrect in understanding that?

[00:07:26] Speaker 00:
You're correct, Your Honor, that that is what the focus of the claims is on.

[00:07:32] Speaker 00:
But as the dissenting Judge Stevens at the PTAP explained this very clearly in the first few pages of his opinion, the focus of the claims and the invention is on coupling these two kinds of communications networks which are claimed in the 555 patent.

[00:07:52] Speaker 00:
And those two networks are described in the claims because it describes the first transceiver being in communication with a terrestrial base station, which creates a larger network.

[00:08:05] Speaker 00:
And then it describes a smaller WLAN transceiver.

[00:08:09] Speaker 00:
And it's also illustrated at figures five and six of the patents, which shows the two kinds of coverage areas which are overlapping.

[00:08:18] Speaker 00:
So the invention of the patent is focused at coupling those two kinds of networks and allowing a mobile station that is in the WLAN to communicate with devices that are out into the larger network.

[00:08:34] Speaker 00:
But as the PTAB descent explained, in coupling the two networks, nothing in the patent indicates that those two networks' status and identity as separate and identifiable networks is lost.

[00:08:48] Speaker 00:
Much to the contrary, the patent teaches that the WLAN transceiver forms a WLAN that provides WLAN service.

[00:08:58] Speaker 00:
As I was mentioning, Your Honor, there's the teaching in the background that a basic component of a local area network is to interconnect devices on the network.

[00:09:11] Speaker 00:
And again, Your Honor, the patent is

[00:09:15] Speaker 00:
teaching against the backdrop that a LAN and a WLAN was a well-known term of art in the field.

[00:09:22] Speaker 00:
So I do just want to make sure that we talk briefly about the evidence that was in the record before the PTAB about what that term of art meant to a person of skill, because on that question, the evidence is unanimous.

[00:09:37] Speaker 00:
All of the evidence before the P tab about what a LAN or a WLAN was understood to mean at the time of the invention indicates that it must have as an essential component the ability to connect devices on the network to each other.

[00:09:57] Speaker 00:
We cited, Your Honor, three technical dictionaries from the relevant time frame, the mid to late 1990s.

[00:10:05] Speaker 00:
to the PTAB, all of which are unanimous on this point.

[00:10:09] Speaker 00:
For example, the Microsoft Press computer dictionary defined the LAN as a group of computers and other devices dispersed over a relatively limited area and connected by a communications link that enables any device to interact with any other on the network.

[00:10:27] Speaker 00:
I think it's notable, Your Honor, that neither Unified nor the PTAB cited a single dictionary

[00:10:32] Speaker 00:
a technical dictionary definition to the contrary.

[00:10:40] Speaker 03:
Let's go back to the claim.

[00:10:44] Speaker 03:
Where do you say that we pick up on the point you're trying to make that all of the devices within the land can communicate with each other within the network?

[00:10:59] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:10:59] Speaker 00:
Again, I think it's inherent

[00:11:03] Speaker 00:
in the term wireless local area network transceiver.

[00:11:07] Speaker 00:
So that's right there in the claim.

[00:11:09] Speaker 00:
The claim then goes on to say that the transceiver, it's not just they're doing nothing, it actually forms connections with a plurality of mobile devices in the coverage area.

[00:11:19] Speaker 00:
So I think that when you have a proper understanding of the term WLAN, and again the specification teach that the transceiver forms WLAN connections and provides WLAN service,

[00:11:32] Speaker 00:
to those plurality of mobile stations.

[00:11:36] Speaker 03:
This is the specification when it does that.

[00:11:39] Speaker 03:
It indicates that only multiple computing devices communicate with an access point on the LAN or the YLAN transceiver.

[00:11:49] Speaker 03:
But how do we get to the point of your argument that that also means that all of the devices can communicate with each other within the network?

[00:11:59] Speaker 00:
Again, Your Honor, it's inherent in

[00:12:01] Speaker 00:
the words wireless local area network transceiver, especially wireless local area network.

[00:12:08] Speaker 00:
The ability for the devices on the local area network to communicate with one another is what makes it a wireless local area network.

[00:12:16] Speaker 00:
And again, as I've been discussing, that is taught in the specification in the background, that interconnection is an essential component of a local area network.

[00:12:28] Speaker 00:
And again, all of the evidence

[00:12:30] Speaker 00:
about what the term of art LAN or WLAN would have meant to a person of skill in the art is to the same effect.

[00:12:37] Speaker 01:
There's not a single... Mr. Taylor, I'm going to interrupt you for a minute.

[00:12:42] Speaker 01:
This is Judge Stoll again.

[00:12:45] Speaker 01:
So one question I have, and you have a difficult hurdle to get over here because the board found repeatedly, the majority found,

[00:12:57] Speaker 01:
contrary to what you're saying, that in fact an essential feature of a WWLAN transceiver does not include interconnecting the mobile stations within the LAN.

[00:13:15] Speaker 01:
I expressly found that in cited evidence and this is it like pages

[00:13:20] Speaker 01:
A-19, A-20, A-21, A-22, and I think even on page A-17 and A-18, a very detailed discussion from the majority here.

[00:13:31] Speaker 01:
What do you think is the standard of review that applies to that for us?

[00:13:35] Speaker 01:
I think it's substantial evidence.

[00:13:37] Speaker 01:
Do you agree?

[00:13:38] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, it's de novo review to the question of whether

[00:13:48] Speaker 00:
the board's findings are consistent with the specification and the claims.

[00:13:53] Speaker 00:
And on that question, as I've been discussing, we think the specification teaches that interconnectivity, again, in column five, is an essential component of a land, and that the claims and the rest of the specification drive that point home.

[00:14:07] Speaker 00:
So it's de novo review as to the specification.

[00:14:10] Speaker 00:
If you get into...

[00:14:12] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:14:13] Speaker 01:
Now, if you get... I agree with you, counsel.

[00:14:14] Speaker 01:
I agree with you that it's de novo review of the ultimate claim construction and of the intrinsic evidence.

[00:14:20] Speaker 01:
But for extrinsic evidence, don't we have to give deference to the board's findings on extrinsic evidence consistent with Supreme Court precedent?

[00:14:32] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:14:32] Speaker 00:
I agree that as to extrinsic evidence,

[00:14:35] Speaker 00:
It's a substantial evidence standard of review.

[00:14:38] Speaker 00:
But again, we think the board failed at the first step because it's inconsistent with the claims and the specification.

[00:14:44] Speaker 00:
But the board's reasoning also failed at the second step because under a substantial evidence review, you have to look at the evidence.

[00:14:55] Speaker 00:
And as I was describing, 100% all of the evidence in the record about what the term would have meant

[00:15:01] Speaker 00:
indicates that connectivity amongst the devices on the network was an essential required component.

[00:15:08] Speaker 00:
I would just note that the board's reasoning is based on an incorrect analysis of a, in large part, of a straw man argument, which was that the board seemed to be understanding us to argue that, is that the beep?

[00:15:25] Speaker 04:
It is.

[00:15:26] Speaker 04:
Complete your thought.

[00:15:28] Speaker 00:
May I?

[00:15:28] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:15:29] Speaker 00:
The board was analyzing an incorrect view of what it thought we meant by direct connectivity, which the board thought meant that a device spoke, that the communication went from device to device.

[00:15:43] Speaker 00:
And the board was correct that that was not understood to be an essential part of a LAN or a WLAN at the time of the invention, but that is not what we were arguing.

[00:15:54] Speaker 00:
And again, the PTAB dissenting judge

[00:15:57] Speaker 00:
understood what our position was, which was that we were arguing that an essential component of a LAN or a WLAN was that the devices be able to communicate with one another on the network without having to go out into the wider network.

[00:16:14] Speaker 04:
All right, anything else from the panel at this point?

[00:16:18] Speaker 04:
Good, we'll save the rebuttal time and let's hear from Mr. Abadi.

[00:16:24] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Your Honor, and may it please the Court.

[00:16:26] Speaker 02:
My name is Brittany Amaya.

[00:16:27] Speaker 02:
Oh, excuse me.

[00:16:28] Speaker 02:
Here's Amaya.

[00:16:29] Speaker 02:
There's no problem, Your Honor.

[00:16:32] Speaker 02:
I represent Appellee Unified Patents.

[00:16:34] Speaker 02:
This appeal turns on a single claim limitation, wireless local area network transceiver or wildland transceiver.

[00:16:41] Speaker 02:
I'll first address GAS's argument that the proper construction of that term requires that the transceiver

[00:16:50] Speaker 02:
connect devices without those communications leaving the network.

[00:16:55] Speaker 02:
And then I'll then address and explain why the board correctly found that the home scene reference discloses a YLAN transceiver.

[00:17:04] Speaker 02:
GIS's argument for overturning the board's construction of YLAN transceiver should be rejected for at least three reasons.

[00:17:11] Speaker 02:
First, the board's construction is firmly grounded in the intrinsic record.

[00:17:16] Speaker 02:
Pointing to the claims and the specification, the board correctly found at Appendix 11 that a transceiver is a device that can both transmit and receive signals, and then explained that the 555 patent specification describes the Y-Land transceiver as a transceiver that, quote, defined the Y-Land coverage area.

[00:17:36] Speaker 02:
The board then concluded that the specification made clear that the Y-Land coverage area defined by the Y-Land transceiver was relatively small.

[00:17:46] Speaker 02:
Finally, the board found that several extrinsic dictionary definitions of local area network were consistent with the intrinsic record as they each defined a local area network as having a covered area that is limited, relatively limited, and small at appendix 12 and 13.

[00:18:04] Speaker 02:
The board's construction was thus fully consistent with the intrinsic record as well as the construction of wildland transceiver that GAS itself originally proposed in its patent owner preliminary response.

[00:18:19] Speaker 01:
This is Judge Stoll.

[00:18:21] Speaker 01:
I wanted to ask you to respond to some of the excerpts from the specification that Mr. Taylor discussed.

[00:18:30] Speaker 01:
He discussed one that was from the background of the invention, and then also I believe that he cited some language in column 12 about how YLAN services provided in a fixed wireless access communication system.

[00:18:47] Speaker 01:
And I just wanted to have your thoughts on the strength of those discussions.

[00:18:52] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:18:52] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:18:53] Speaker 02:
Both of the passages on which she has pointed the court this morning do not require that the wireless local area network transceiver interconnect devices or facilitate communications between those devices without the wireless, without the communications leading the network.

[00:19:11] Speaker 02:
And that's for two reasons.

[00:19:13] Speaker 02:
One, the passage on which she has relied

[00:19:18] Speaker 02:
It merely indicates that there is an interconnection between devices, but it says absolutely nothing about whether or not those devices must communicate without the communications leaving the network, which is the critical aspect of ZAS's proposed construction.

[00:19:32] Speaker 02:
And second, even if it were the case that a wireless local area network requires communication to happen between devices within the network without leaving the network, something that the board explicitly rejected

[00:19:48] Speaker 02:
Even if that were true, there's nothing in the intrinsic record that would require a wildland transceiver to facilitate those communications as opposed to other devices within the network.

[00:19:59] Speaker 02:
And the board found that repeatedly in its decision in rejecting the arguments that DAS is now raising.

[00:20:08] Speaker 02:
Simply put, there's nothing in the intrinsic record that requires a RARLAN transceiver to facilitate communications between devices in the network without those communications leaving the network.

[00:20:22] Speaker 02:
The other information to which DAS points is extrinsic evidence.

[00:20:27] Speaker 02:
But as Your Honor pointed out, the board explicitly rejected that extrinsic evidence.

[00:20:32] Speaker 02:
And I believe Council Mr. Taylor mentioned

[00:20:35] Speaker 02:
or stated that the extrinsic evidence was unreported, but that's simply not true.

[00:20:42] Speaker 02:
While DES relies heavily on one of the dictionaries that it submitted, there were other dictionaries in the record to which the board pointed that contradicted its position.

[00:20:52] Speaker 02:
For example, the IBM Dictionary of Computing

[00:20:55] Speaker 02:
which is at Appendix 1462, defines a local area network as a computer network located on a user's premises with a limited geographical area.

[00:21:06] Speaker 02:
The board's construction was fully consistent with that dictionary definition.

[00:21:11] Speaker 02:
It makes no mention of communication being direct or requiring that communications to occur without leaving the network.

[00:21:21] Speaker 02:
In addition, the board

[00:21:23] Speaker 02:
was well within its authority to reject the extrinsic evidence on which GAS relied.

[00:21:29] Speaker 02:
The board made several factual findings regarding GAS's extrinsic evidence, and each of those findings are entitled to deference.

[00:21:37] Speaker 02:
For example, the board found that there was no, that Mr. Stroussaker's testimony, which was the primary evidence on which GAS relied below, was, quote,

[00:21:52] Speaker 02:
bear and not supported by corroborating evidence.

[00:21:55] Speaker 02:
And that finding is particularly supported given that Mr. Stroustaker was not an uninterested neutral party, but was the sole end inventor on the 555 patent.

[00:22:07] Speaker 02:
Moreover, Mr. Stroustaker's testimony was not unrebutted as GAS claims.

[00:22:13] Speaker 02:
Unified Spinks relied on the testimony of its own expert, Dr. Michael Cotson, who disputed Mr. Stroustaker's claims regarding the

[00:22:22] Speaker 02:
scope of wildland fever.

[00:22:24] Speaker 02:
Mr. Costin explained that a skilled artisan would have understood that the local area network is a network limited in geographical scope.

[00:22:32] Speaker 02:
And again, that was consistent with the position that GAF took in its patent owner preliminary response.

[00:22:42] Speaker 02:
So I'd like to turn, if the court has no further questions on the claim construction issue, to the merits of whether Holmstein discloses and whether the board's decision that Holmstein discloses a wildland transceiver was supported by substantial evidence.

[00:23:02] Speaker 04:
On that issue... It might be helpful, Ms.

[00:23:05] Speaker 04:
Havati, to consider in order to give full attention to the more restricted claim construction that Mr. Taylor has been proposing, how the board's decision would apply or if it would apply to the claim construction that's being proposed.

[00:23:30] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:23:30] Speaker 02:
So I'll take that in two parts.

[00:23:32] Speaker 02:
GES has made two arguments with respect to whether or not Holmstein discloses a YLAN transceiver.

[00:23:39] Speaker 02:
And first, GES argues that the board conclusion that Holmstein discloses a YLAN transceiver was not supported because there's no evidence that it discloses a network that is relatively small or geographically limited.

[00:23:57] Speaker 02:
So I'll address that first.

[00:23:59] Speaker 02:
And then the second point that GES makes

[00:24:01] Speaker 02:
is that under its proposed construction that the court would find the claims to be patentable, but both of those arguments are incorrect.

[00:24:10] Speaker 02:
With respect to the first, it's simply incorrect that HomeScene is silent about the relative size of the network formed by HomeScene's access points.

[00:24:20] Speaker 02:
HomeScene explains throughout that its wireless communication system includes access points

[00:24:26] Speaker 02:
where each access point includes at least one antenna for communicating with the wireless subscriber unit.

[00:24:33] Speaker 02:
Holmstein further explains that each access point, and this is at appendix 347, column four, line 12 through 14, defines a coverage area 24, such as, for example, a cell.

[00:24:47] Speaker 02:
Holmstein then explains that access points may be, for example, a local radio access point at column four, line eight through 12.

[00:24:57] Speaker 02:
and further explains that the coverage area defined by the access point may be a single region resulting from the use of an omnidirectional antenna, and that the coverage area defined by the access point is self-supporting, relatively small, and adaptable to a wide variety of wireless access applications.

[00:25:16] Speaker 02:
There was then ample record support to support the board's conclusion that HOMESCENE discloses a coverage area that is relatively small and geographically limited.

[00:25:28] Speaker 02:
Now, with respect to the other argument that DAS makes, that a finding in their support that Homes sees that the claim construction would require the wildland transceiver to facilitate communication without those communications leaving the network, a position with which Unified Patents disagrees, at most a remand would be required on that issue if the court were inclined to agree.

[00:25:58] Speaker 02:
with GAS's proposed construction.

[00:26:00] Speaker 02:
As we noted in our brief at page 32, note five, even were this court to conclude that GAS's construction were correct, the board should have construed, that the board should have construed wireline consenting fever to require communication between devices without leaving the network.

[00:26:21] Speaker 02:
As unified patents explained before the board, Homescene renders the claims unpatentable even under GAS's readable claims.

[00:26:28] Speaker 02:
and that's at appendix 2432 to 2436.

[00:26:32] Speaker 02:
However, as is explained under the board's correct interpretation of the claim, the board's finding that all claims of the 555 patent are unpatentable should be affirmed and are more than supported by substantial evidence.

[00:26:49] Speaker 02:
If there are no further questions from the panel, I will see the remainder at my time.

[00:26:56] Speaker 04:
Any questions from the panel?

[00:26:59] Speaker 04:
No questions.

[00:27:02] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:27:02] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Ms.

[00:27:03] Speaker 04:
Amati.

[00:27:04] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:27:05] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:27:07] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:27:07] Speaker 04:
Mr. Terry, you have your rebuttal time.

[00:27:11] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:27:13] Speaker 00:
Just to recenter the discussion that we've been having, the term is wireless local area network transceiver.

[00:27:22] Speaker 00:
And of course, as the Court knows, a proper claim construction

[00:27:25] Speaker 00:
must give effect to every word in that term.

[00:27:29] Speaker 00:
At most, the PTAB's construction gave effect to the word transceiver and to the word wireless local area in its description of a coverage area that is relatively small or geographically limited.

[00:27:45] Speaker 00:
But the fatal flaw with the PTAB majority's construction is that it does not give meaning to the word network.

[00:27:53] Speaker 00:
As the PTAB descent explained, the basic function of any network is to connect devices on the network and allow them to communicate with one another.

[00:28:02] Speaker 00:
But that concept of a network is completely absent from the PTAB majority's construction.

[00:28:09] Speaker 00:
Therefore, because the construction fails to give effect to every word in the term, and also is contrary to the teachings in the specification that I discussed during my arguments

[00:28:21] Speaker 00:
the construction is incorrect and should be rejected by this court.

[00:28:26] Speaker 00:
The correct construction is the one that was offered by or adopted by the dissenting judge at the PTAB, Judge Stevens.

[00:28:35] Speaker 00:
Judge Stevens recognized that a correct construction of WLAN transceiver recognizes both that the transceiver must actually create a WLAN

[00:28:46] Speaker 00:
And second, that the WLAN created by the transceiver must function as any WLAN would as understood by a person of skill in the art, which again is to provide interconnectivity amongst devices on the WLAN.

[00:29:03] Speaker 00:
Now turning to Judge Newman's question about how this court should read a Holmstein reference using the correct claim construction that we are advocating

[00:29:16] Speaker 00:
in which the PTAB dissenting judge adopted.

[00:29:18] Speaker 00:
Holmstein, if the court adopts the correct construction, which it should, the proper result is to reverse the PTAB.

[00:29:30] Speaker 00:
Because there really is no dispute that the Holmstein reference does not teach the creation of a separate wireless local area network that allows devices on the network to communicate with one another.

[00:29:46] Speaker 03:
Councilor, this is Judge Raina.

[00:29:48] Speaker 03:
Do you dispute that whether or not Holstein discloses the re-limitation of the claims 1 through 20 of the 55-10, 555-10?

[00:30:00] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry, Your Honor.

[00:30:01] Speaker 00:
I missed part of the question.

[00:30:02] Speaker 00:
It's whether I dispute that it discloses every element?

[00:30:05] Speaker 03:
The re-limitation, yes.

[00:30:07] Speaker 03:
The limitations of claims 1 through 20.

[00:30:11] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, we don't... We dispute and disagree that Holstein discloses

[00:30:16] Speaker 00:
the term that we've been discussing, the wireless local area network transceiver.

[00:30:22] Speaker 00:
We are not, for today's purposes, disputing whether Holmstein discloses the other elements in claims 1 through 20, but we do not agree that Holmstein discloses the wireless local area network transceiver, again, because Holmstein simply does not describe the creation of a separate layer of network, the smaller wireless local area network.

[00:30:45] Speaker 00:
Instead, as we explained in our brief and as the dissenting judge of the PTAB correctly recognized, home scene is all about extending one layer of network, a mesh network.

[00:30:55] Speaker 00:
Whereas the 555 patent with the term WLAN transceiver properly understood is about connecting two different kinds of networks.

[00:31:04] Speaker 00:
Now, I just want to briefly note, Your Honors, the Council mentioned an alternative argument

[00:31:09] Speaker 00:
about Holmstein rendering this construction obvious.

[00:31:13] Speaker 00:
I want to note that, Your Honor, may I briefly finish my answer?

[00:31:17] Speaker 04:
Finish your thought.

[00:31:18] Speaker 00:
I just want to briefly note that the PTAB dissenting judge considered that argument at the end of his opinion.

[00:31:25] Speaker 00:
He explained it was procedurally defaulted because it was made for the first time in reply.

[00:31:30] Speaker 00:
And also that it failed on the merits because it failed to explain why a person of skill would have been motivated to fundamentally alter homestead to create the second layer of network that is required by a correct construction of the term WN transceiver.

[00:31:47] Speaker 01:
Mr. Taylor, this is Judge Stoll.

[00:31:49] Speaker 01:
I had one last quick question, which is that I did not see where the board made any alternative fact-finding

[00:31:57] Speaker 01:
under your proposed construction that you're advocating before us today.

[00:32:02] Speaker 01:
Do you agree with that?

[00:32:04] Speaker 00:
I agree that the PTAB majority did not.

[00:32:06] Speaker 00:
What I was referring to was in the PTAB dissenting opinion.

[00:32:09] Speaker 01:
Okay, but we have to look to the PTAB majority opinion for the findings of fact, right?

[00:32:15] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:32:17] Speaker 01:
Okay, thank you.

[00:32:21] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:32:22] Speaker 00:
We respectfully request that this court reverse the PTAB.

[00:32:26] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:32:27] Speaker 04:
Thank you both.

[00:32:27] Speaker 04:
The case is taken under submission.