[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
The next case is Dally Wireless versus Plum Scope Technologies, Inc., number 2010-45.

[00:00:11] Speaker 03:
You're going to have to help me with your last name.

[00:00:14] Speaker 00:
Easy to have luck.

[00:00:16] Speaker 00:
Spida.

[00:00:16] Speaker 03:
Spida?

[00:00:23] Speaker 00:
The board misconstrued the claims of the 473 patent, which led to its erroneous finding that the woo reference anticipates and renders obvious representative claim 11.

[00:00:35] Speaker 00:
Importantly, the board did not find claim 11 would be anticipated or obvious under Dahle's interpretation of the terms at issue here.

[00:00:44] Speaker 00:
If this court adopts Dahle's reasoning and interprets the claims as Dahle urges, then it should reverse the board's findings of invalidity.

[00:00:55] Speaker 00:
I think it's important to start with what claim 11 actually says so we can illustrate what the board missed here.

[00:01:01] Speaker 00:
If the court will indulge me, I'm going to read a rather lengthy limitation that's in claim 11 that is the first relevant limitation here to understand the scope of this plan.

[00:01:13] Speaker 00:
And that limitation reads, wherein the host unit is configurable to transmit a digital representation of a first subset of the plurality of downlink signals to the first remote unit.

[00:01:25] Speaker 00:
and a digital representation of a second subset of the plurality of downlink signals to the second photo unit, the second subset being different than the first subset.

[00:01:38] Speaker 00:
That's at appendix 201.

[00:01:41] Speaker 00:
In other words, claim 11 requires the host to be configurable to transmit at least two different downlink signals to at least two different remotes.

[00:01:49] Speaker 00:
That's right in the claim.

[00:01:50] Speaker 00:
Here, the board actually agreed with Donald and found that this is a key functionality of the claim that rejected CommScope's argument that this is an intended use.

[00:01:58] Speaker 00:
The board also found that Woo does not work this way.

[00:02:01] Speaker 00:
finding that in the case where multiple remotes are connected to one of Wu's host units, all such remote units receive the downlink signal and the singular.

[00:02:09] Speaker 00:
That's Appendix 23.

[00:02:12] Speaker 00:
Now, this should have been enough for the board to reject CommScope's argument that Wu invalidates Claim 11.

[00:02:19] Speaker 00:
But the board didn't do that.

[00:02:21] Speaker 00:
Instead, it focused on the second relevant limitation in question, which I will also read in its entirety here.

[00:02:28] Speaker 00:
And that limitation is when the host unit is capable of sending a digital representation of any downlink signal it receives to any of the plurality of remote units.

[00:02:38] Speaker 04:
Isn't it that latter limitation that you just read now?

[00:02:42] Speaker 04:
Isn't that the one that your brief is all about?

[00:02:45] Speaker 00:
Yes and no, Your Honor.

[00:02:48] Speaker 00:
I hate to say yes and no, but

[00:02:50] Speaker 00:
Our brief is focused on this limitation because this is where the court erred.

[00:02:54] Speaker 00:
But the reality is these two, I'm sorry, the board erred.

[00:02:56] Speaker 00:
But these two limitations have to be understood together because they appear in sequence in the brief.

[00:03:02] Speaker 00:
They're speaking about the same thing.

[00:03:03] Speaker 04:
It seems to me this goes to whether this idea of selective transmission is captured in the claims.

[00:03:09] Speaker 04:
Is that right?

[00:03:10] Speaker 04:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:03:11] Speaker 04:
And I had understood your briefing to us to be, yes, it's captured in the claims in the second of the two limitations that you just read to us.

[00:03:20] Speaker 00:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:03:20] Speaker 04:
Did you make an argument to us that it's captured in the claims in the first longer limitation that you read to us?

[00:03:27] Speaker 00:
No, Your Honor.

[00:03:28] Speaker 00:
That argument is not precisely in the brief, but I'm providing the context.

[00:03:31] Speaker 04:
Is it at all implied in the brief?

[00:03:35] Speaker 00:
It is in the sense that what we're focused on is the meaning of the second limitation that I just read.

[00:03:41] Speaker 04:
How would I know that reading your brief?

[00:03:44] Speaker 04:
I mean, how would I know that the first one that you read is somehow at issue in this case?

[00:03:48] Speaker 00:
Well, that's the thing.

[00:03:50] Speaker 00:
It's not an issue.

[00:03:51] Speaker 00:
The board agreed with us.

[00:03:52] Speaker 00:
So it's just a background fact here that this is what the claim says.

[00:03:56] Speaker 00:
And so in interpreting the plain meaning of the claim, it's important to give meaning to the surrounding language.

[00:04:01] Speaker 04:
So are you saying on this appeal, we don't have to decide if selective transmission is part of the limitation that you briefed to us?

[00:04:11] Speaker 00:
You don't have to decide that precise question, Your Honor.

[00:04:15] Speaker 00:
That's correct.

[00:04:15] Speaker 00:
But I think the court does need to pay attention to the surrounding claim language, including that limitation that I read in the first instance.

[00:04:23] Speaker 00:
So I think to separate them entirely would probably not be correct.

[00:04:27] Speaker 00:
But you're right, Your Honor, that it's not at issue in the sense that we think the board made some sort of error.

[00:04:32] Speaker 00:
There's no error for the court to correct in that first limitation.

[00:04:36] Speaker 04:
To.

[00:04:37] Speaker 04:
So do we even have to resolve a claim construction dispute here because it seems the board said that who discloses this selective transmission either way.

[00:04:48] Speaker 00:
So I actually disagree with that your honor and if you'll indulge me I can I can point you to the appendix on that issue.

[00:04:54] Speaker 00:
So my

[00:04:57] Speaker 00:
Dolly's interpretation of the board's finding on that issue is that at appendix 23 the board actually pretty directly stated that it was basing its reasoning on what was disclosed, I'm sorry, on the claim construction position.

[00:05:15] Speaker 00:
So it says at appendix 23 This line of argument is based on patent owners claim construction position that the capable ascending limitation requires signals to be sent only to one specific remote unit which we have rejected And then it goes on to say you know acknowledge here that in Wu

[00:05:36] Speaker 00:
where there are multiple remote units connected to one of Wu's host units, all such remote units receive the downlink signal.

[00:05:43] Speaker 00:
So really what it's saying there is the same signal is going to the remote units in Wu.

[00:05:48] Speaker 00:
The difference in Wu, and Wu is really directed to a very, it's a similar problem it's directed to, but it solves it in a very different way.

[00:05:54] Speaker 00:
It is selectively transmitting, if we can use that phrase, to the hosts.

[00:05:58] Speaker 00:
So there are a number of hosts that receive a signal, but then they pass on that signal to all the remotes, regardless of how many remotes are coupled to that one host.

[00:06:09] Speaker 00:
And so the board actually acknowledged that there and really did focus on this point construction sphere as being the basis for its finding.

[00:06:17] Speaker 00:
And this is where these two limitations interact with each other in a really significant way.

[00:06:21] Speaker 00:
Because what the claim says on its face is that there need to be two remotes, at least two remotes, and they need to receive different subsets of signals.

[00:06:29] Speaker 00:
Now, Wu doesn't do that.

[00:06:30] Speaker 00:
Wu has maybe numerous hosts, but that's a different component that's performing a different function.

[00:06:34] Speaker 04:
But isn't it because in Wu, according to the board, the matrix switch did the selecting out and only sent different signals to different host units?

[00:06:44] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor, the board did say that, but it said it in a different context.

[00:06:47] Speaker 00:
So what the board found was that the matrix switch and the host of Wu form a host.

[00:06:53] Speaker 00:
It didn't say that the matrix switch is then selecting out channels and sending those to different remotes.

[00:07:00] Speaker 00:
And in Wu's disclosure, there's a whole discussion about the importance of regions, and every one of the paragraphs that CommScope points to as being critical to the board's determination confirms this.

[00:07:12] Speaker 00:
The idea is that you could have numerous hosts connected to these base stations where the matrix switch is, and those hosts will just repeat the same channels to all the remotes that are connected to them.

[00:07:23] Speaker 00:
And that's actually at paragraph 51 of Wu.

[00:07:27] Speaker 00:
This is actually set expressly, and if I can get the citation here to you, that's Appendix 1191, Paragraph 51 of Wu.

[00:07:38] Speaker 00:
If you compare that to Appendix 196 at Column 4, Lines 9 through 16, you'll see that there's a pretty stark distinction between what Wu is talking about and what the 473 pattern is talking about.

[00:07:52] Speaker 04:
Is there any error in the board treating who's matrix switch and host unit as being the equivalent essentially to the host unit of your patent.

[00:08:06] Speaker 00:
So we did we did brief that issue your honor.

[00:08:08] Speaker 00:
I think we do consider it to have been an error that the legal error.

[00:08:14] Speaker 00:
No, Your Honor, I think I would characterize that as simply lacking substantial evidence in support.

[00:08:21] Speaker 02:
It seems to me that it's just a terminology issue.

[00:08:29] Speaker 02:
My understanding of what the board did was to basically look at the claim and look at the functionality recited in the claim and then read it on the Wu reference.

[00:08:41] Speaker 02:
And even though host may have been used in a different way in the reference compared to the way it's used in the claim, the board was looking at a sort of the broader picture of what the functionality was to conclude that it reads on that reference.

[00:08:58] Speaker 02:
What's wrong with that?

[00:09:00] Speaker 00:
Well, Your Honor, I think that's true as far as it goes with respect to the host, that the board didn't make a finding and say the matrix switch and the host function together as a host.

[00:09:09] Speaker 00:
But to adopt the conclusion then that the selective transmission is happening in the same way as the 473 patent, that would require going a step further and saying that not only is the host and the matrix switch a host,

[00:09:20] Speaker 00:
But now we're going to go even further and we're going to say that these remotes that are all getting the same channel, well, technically, you know, we would have to then ignore that they're not getting a first and a second channel that are different.

[00:09:33] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry, yes, the first and the second remotes in that situation are all getting the same

[00:09:40] Speaker 00:
channels.

[00:09:41] Speaker 00:
And so we would have to then go to a second host.

[00:09:43] Speaker 00:
So it's essentially expanding the DAS and now include multiple hosts, multiple base stations in order to arrive at the claim.

[00:09:50] Speaker 00:
And that's not what's contemplated in the 473 patent.

[00:09:52] Speaker 00:
The whole idea in the 473 patent is to have an architecture that is as simple as possible and can still separate out those signals to the different remotes.

[00:10:00] Speaker 00:
To accomplish that with Woo, you would require a massive system with numerous hosts and base stations.

[00:10:07] Speaker 02:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand you argue that

[00:10:10] Speaker 00:
In the invention You have the capability of sending one signal to one remote so you selectively Just send that one signal to one particular remote So yes, and we did say that that that was written with a view towards informing not to argue that there is one remote connected to the host it's to say that if there are two remotes and

[00:10:36] Speaker 00:
There have to be two remotes.

[00:10:37] Speaker 00:
The plain language requires that.

[00:10:38] Speaker 00:
One remote will get one of those signals and another remote will get a different signal.

[00:10:41] Speaker 00:
And they have to be different because the plain language requires that.

[00:10:44] Speaker 02:
Where in the claim does it require that?

[00:10:47] Speaker 00:
That's the first limitation that I read this morning, that there need to be different subsets of signals going to different remotes.

[00:10:57] Speaker 00:
And there need to be at least two of them.

[00:10:58] Speaker 02:
Different subsets, but not necessarily just one signal going to one remote.

[00:11:02] Speaker 00:
Oh, I understand.

[00:11:03] Speaker 00:
Now I understand your honor's question.

[00:11:04] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry.

[00:11:05] Speaker 00:
We certainly never meant to argue that it was going to be just one signal.

[00:11:07] Speaker 04:
Just briefly, you make a distinction I think between Woo teaching routing carrier channels as opposed to downlink signals.

[00:11:20] Speaker 04:
Is that an important distinction and did you make that distinction to the board?

[00:11:24] Speaker 00:
We did make that distinction, and we addressed it briefly in our briefing.

[00:11:29] Speaker 00:
The distinction essentially is that a channel as described in Wu doesn't necessarily have the payload on it, whereas a downlink signal would have not only the carrier information, but it would actually have the

[00:11:41] Speaker 00:
whatever signals are traveling with it.

[00:11:44] Speaker 00:
We obviously thought that distinction was important.

[00:11:47] Speaker 00:
I believe the board did not agree.

[00:11:49] Speaker 00:
And so that's where it didn't get a lot of treatment.

[00:11:52] Speaker 04:
And where can we find it in the record to the board, where you made that argument to the board?

[00:11:58] Speaker 00:
That would be.

[00:11:59] Speaker 04:
It's fine with me.

[00:12:01] Speaker 04:
I guess the citation when you come back.

[00:12:03] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:12:03] Speaker 00:
Yeah, I'm sorry, Your Honor.

[00:12:04] Speaker 00:
You're into your rebuttal.

[00:12:06] Speaker 00:
So do you want to say your rebuttal?

[00:12:08] Speaker 00:
If you'll allow me to make a couple quick points on packetizing.

[00:12:15] Speaker 00:
I just wanted to flag on the packetizing issue, which we also briefed.

[00:12:21] Speaker 00:
Our position there is there's a lack of substantial evidence for the board's findings.

[00:12:25] Speaker 00:
And I wanted to simply clarify one point here, which is that what the board relied on is section 6.3.2 and section 6.3.3 of the SIPRI.

[00:12:36] Speaker 00:
standard.

[00:12:37] Speaker 00:
That is an optional part of the standard.

[00:12:39] Speaker 00:
It says it's informative.

[00:12:40] Speaker 00:
It's not mandatory.

[00:12:41] Speaker 00:
And there's really a lack of explanation, both in CommScope's argument and Dr. Akinpour's declaration and the board's reasoning for why a person of ordinary filmy art would look to those portions of the specification under those circumstances.

[00:12:53] Speaker 00:
And that's especially true since even if you assume that SIPRI means packetizing, which is what the board has done in its findings, if you packetize at the remotes,

[00:13:04] Speaker 00:
as Wu discloses on that theory, there'd be no reason to packetize at the host, which is what claims 9 and 14 require.

[00:13:11] Speaker 00:
So the premise that simply using SIPRI would inform a person of ordinary skill in the art to then make that modification to add SIPRI in the communication channel between then the host and the base station, it's incorrect because there'd be no reason to do that.

[00:13:26] Speaker 00:
It's already packetized in the remote at that point.

[00:13:29] Speaker 00:
So it just shows another leap that the board took here in its haste to arrive at this conclusion that it arrived at.

[00:13:36] Speaker 00:
And with that, Your Honor, if you have no further questions, I'll reserve my time.

[00:13:41] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:13:41] Speaker 03:
Mr. Casper.

[00:13:43] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:13:44] Speaker 01:
Phil Casper for Comscope, the appellee.

[00:13:49] Speaker 01:
One big picture point I want to address up front, and that is, in addition to finding all but the packetizing claims anticipated,

[00:13:58] Speaker 01:
The board also found all the claims to be obvious, obvious either in view of woo or woo and sabbath.

[00:14:05] Speaker 01:
So on that issue, the patent owner never challenged motivation.

[00:14:11] Speaker 01:
It submitted no teaching away evidence and very minimal

[00:14:17] Speaker 01:
If you look at the appendix, just a handful of expert testimony, but it's to other issues.

[00:14:23] Speaker 01:
Their expert submits no expert testimony challenging motivation or no expert testimony on SIPRI.

[00:14:34] Speaker 01:
Instead, what we saw in their briefs and we heard today is attorney argument.

[00:14:39] Speaker 01:
And we cataloged the evidence.

[00:14:43] Speaker 01:
Dr. Aikenpour submitted detailed evidence on motivation.

[00:14:46] Speaker 01:
And the board credited that.

[00:14:48] Speaker 01:
And that can't be overcome by attorney argument.

[00:14:53] Speaker 01:
So let me turn to the board's finding that Wu's system is, quote, capable of sending any downlink signal it receives to any of the remote units.

[00:15:03] Speaker 01:
There's substantial evidence of that.

[00:15:06] Speaker 01:
The board, for example, pointed to Wu paragraph 47.

[00:15:11] Speaker 01:
where it states that the system can be configured to route channels 270 collectively, individually, or in any other desirable configurations.

[00:15:25] Speaker 01:
And then paragraph 49 adds to that, that the Wu system can route carrier channels in arbitrary groups.

[00:15:33] Speaker 01:
That same paragraph 47 that I mentioned also gives a simple example where Wu's matrix switch, 250,

[00:15:42] Speaker 01:
can route two different carrier channels via units 230, via the multiple units 230, to two different remote units.

[00:15:53] Speaker 01:
So they specifically say a first carrier channel is routed to a first remote unit, and a second carrier channel is routed to a second remote unit.

[00:16:01] Speaker 01:
Now keep in mind that claim 11 only requires two remotes, a first remote unit and a second remote unit.

[00:16:11] Speaker 01:
two downline signals.

[00:16:13] Speaker 01:
Example, a first carrier and a second carrier.

[00:16:16] Speaker 01:
That simple example in paragraph 47 discloses the any to any limitation.

[00:16:24] Speaker 01:
And as the board noted, that's true even under patent owners' very narrow construction of any to any.

[00:16:33] Speaker 01:
They keep saying that, I'm not sure I understand it, but when I hear them say it, it sounds like they're talking about another limitation where the host is configured to send different subsets to different remotes.

[00:16:47] Speaker 01:
And the board noted this, that instead of responding to paragraph 47 and the invalidity theory that the court adopted,

[00:17:00] Speaker 01:
patent owner isolates one of the digitizing units or units 230 it's called host units 230 but they isolate one of them and they argue that one alone is not sufficient well that's that's responding to an invalidity theory that no one adopted turning to

[00:17:19] Speaker 01:
the issue, whether there's substantial evidence that Wu's combination of the matrix switch 250 and the multiple units 230 discloses or renders obvious the host unit.

[00:17:32] Speaker 01:
I just want to make a few points on this.

[00:17:34] Speaker 01:
These components, as the board found, they serve the same function.

[00:17:40] Speaker 01:
as the host unit in the patent.

[00:17:43] Speaker 01:
On one end, they serve as an interface to the base station.

[00:17:45] Speaker 01:
On the other end, this combination of matrix switch and multiple units 230.

[00:17:51] Speaker 01:
On the other end, it serves as an interface to the remote units.

[00:17:57] Speaker 01:
And as to that combination, the board noted that the subcomponents are repeatedly described as functioning together, citing woo paragraph 38, 36, and 39.

[00:18:08] Speaker 01:
That's in appendix 1189.

[00:18:11] Speaker 01:
1190, they're shown and described to be directly coupled, and they're shown and described to be co-located, as shown in figure two and four, and shown to be within the same unit in figure four.

[00:18:27] Speaker 01:
So as the board pointed out, notably, Dahle didn't submit any counter-argument before the board that the Wu's matrix switched 250 in combination with Wu's multiple units 230.

[00:18:41] Speaker 01:
They didn't submit any evidence to challenge the function of that combination of components.

[00:18:47] Speaker 01:
The board said, quote, patent owner does not argue any difference, structural, functional, or otherwise.

[00:18:54] Speaker 04:
Well, they do now argue to us.

[00:18:55] Speaker 04:
I think it was in the gray brief at 9, in describing Wu, they say there's no selectivity in Wu

[00:19:02] Speaker 04:
even if you add the matrix switch to the host units, because the routing policy of the matrix switch cannot transmit individual downlink signals to individual remote units.

[00:19:13] Speaker 04:
I take that to be the argument, at least in the reply brief, to us.

[00:19:17] Speaker 04:
What do you make of that?

[00:19:19] Speaker 01:
Yeah, well, I see that as focusing on

[00:19:27] Speaker 01:
You know one individual unit digitizing unit itself I mean the matrix switch the way it operates is it it's connected to multiple digitizing units or host units and It routes the appropriate carrier signals to the appropriate Unit 230 each unit 230 is connected to different groups of of remotes and it routes it for digitizing

[00:19:53] Speaker 01:
and then sending to the remote units that are connected.

[00:19:58] Speaker 01:
So I guess I would disagree with their argument, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me in terms of the board's invalidity theory.

[00:20:08] Speaker 01:
Getting to whether the combination of the matrix switch and the multiple units 230 disclose the host unit, the board also found that it would have been obvious in view of Wu alone

[00:20:23] Speaker 01:
You know, if they say, if their argument is, well, it's not in a single unit, the board found that it would have been obvious to place the functionality of both Wu's matrix switch and the host units in a single unit.

[00:20:35] Speaker 01:
And here, we submitted detailed analysis from Dr. Akampora, going through the motivation, and they didn't submit any expert testimony in response.

[00:20:47] Speaker 01:
And as pointed out by the board, they don't challenge the specific basis.

[00:20:51] Speaker 01:
This is an obviousness issue at this point.

[00:20:55] Speaker 01:
And they have no evidence.

[00:20:58] Speaker 01:
Let me turn to the packetizing.

[00:21:00] Speaker 04:
But before you do, you haven't mentioned claim construction.

[00:21:03] Speaker 04:
Do you view this as an appeal on which we have to resolve a claim construction dispute?

[00:21:08] Speaker 01:
Certainly not on the element that

[00:21:15] Speaker 01:
Wu discloses the capability of sending any to any, because the board indicated that, look, Wu discloses that limitation even under their construction.

[00:21:26] Speaker 01:
There is a construction under packetizing, whether packetizing, in fact, requires destination or source information.

[00:21:35] Speaker 01:
We disagree with that.

[00:21:36] Speaker 01:
We went through a lot of evidence and intrinsic evidence and other in the brief.

[00:21:42] Speaker 04:
But you're not the appellant, so we certainly don't have to resolve that.

[00:21:46] Speaker 01:
That's right.

[00:21:47] Speaker 01:
It would be harmless, even if you disagree with it, because they found that the packetizing claims were obvious.

[00:21:53] Speaker 01:
On the packetizing claims, the board's decision at 32 to 33 is very helpful, and it clears up a lot of the arguments in the reply brief.

[00:22:06] Speaker 01:
said that the hearing narrowed and clarified what was disputed and not disputed.

[00:22:12] Speaker 01:
The board noted that the patent owner admitted in its reply brief before the board that Sabbath, the second reference, uses SIFRI in the interface to the base station.

[00:22:26] Speaker 01:
That point was undisputed.

[00:22:28] Speaker 01:
What the patent owner did dispute

[00:22:33] Speaker 01:
is whether the CIPRI standard disclosed addressing destination information.

[00:22:38] Speaker 01:
And on that issue, the board found that the CIPRI standard, in fact, at section 6.3, disclosed the option of using addresses with the data, in other words, destination information, for transmitting data packets

[00:22:56] Speaker 01:
to more complex network topologies.

[00:22:59] Speaker 01:
For example, if you have multiple wrecks or multiple base stations to communicate with.

[00:23:05] Speaker 01:
And here, again, the board, in finding the packetizing claims obvious, in view of Wu and Sabbath,

[00:23:16] Speaker 01:
credited Dr. Akinpour's detailed analysis of motivation, the SIPRI standard.

[00:23:24] Speaker 01:
The board also credited the SIPRI standard itself.

[00:23:27] Speaker 01:
But the board also noted, and Dr. Akampora pointed out, that the embodiments disclosed in WOO and SAVET both describe embodiments where there's multiple base stations in the upstream to communicate with.

[00:23:41] Speaker 01:
That's the very complex technology that the SIPRI standard earmarks for using a dressing.

[00:23:49] Speaker 01:
You no longer have a point-to-point situation where you're only going from here to here.

[00:23:54] Speaker 01:
where you don't need addressing, but when you have multiple base stations to communicate, you need addressing so the data goes to the right location.

[00:24:01] Speaker 01:
So this is a classic case of obviousness.

[00:24:04] Speaker 01:
You're taking a suggested feature, addressing, right?

[00:24:09] Speaker 01:
Addressing the data from SIPRI and SABIT and using it for the same purpose for which it was taught to be used.

[00:24:19] Speaker 01:
Complex network topologies, for example,

[00:24:23] Speaker 01:
systems that have multiple base stations in the upstream.

[00:24:27] Speaker 01:
So again, our brief detailed the motivation, the discussion of SIPRI, and we pointed to detailed discussion from our expert, Dr. A. Campora, on this issue, and a patent owner in response doesn't challenge motivation, submits no evidence on the SIPRI standard,

[00:24:48] Speaker 01:
All the arguments that we're hearing are attorney arguments that are unsupported by evidence.

[00:24:55] Speaker 01:
That can't overcome the evidence we put forward, and the board relied on, on obviousness.

[00:25:02] Speaker 01:
I can't address the claim construction I'm packetizing.

[00:25:08] Speaker 01:
Just briefly.

[00:25:09] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry.

[00:25:10] Speaker 03:
Is that an issue that's before us?

[00:25:14] Speaker 01:
We did brief it.

[00:25:16] Speaker 01:
We did brief it as an alternative.

[00:25:18] Speaker 01:
If you disagree with the obviousness determination, if you don't want to hear it, I'm happy to.

[00:25:23] Speaker 03:
It's your time.

[00:25:25] Speaker 01:
I'll stop here, Your Honor.

[00:25:28] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

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

[00:25:30] Speaker 03:
Mr. Spada, you have a little bit over on your end.

[00:25:33] Speaker 00:
Thank you very much, Your Honors.

[00:25:34] Speaker 00:
First, I wanted to respond to Judge Stark's question about the difference between signals and channels.

[00:25:40] Speaker 00:
We did make the argument at page 38 of our brief.

[00:25:43] Speaker 00:
You're right.

[00:25:43] Speaker 00:
We did not cite to the record at that point in our brief.

[00:25:46] Speaker 00:
I must have been thinking of another IPR.

[00:25:48] Speaker 00:
I apologize.

[00:25:50] Speaker 04:
So are you acknowledging you did not even make the argument to the board?

[00:25:53] Speaker 00:
We made the argument in our briefing, but it does not appear to be in the record to the board.

[00:25:58] Speaker 00:
And I wanted to respond on paragraph 47 with the limited time I have left.

[00:26:02] Speaker 00:
Paragraph 47 of Woo is discussing a form of distributing channels among hosts.

[00:26:09] Speaker 00:
And this is the fundamental problem with CommScope's argument, is that it wanted that host to be combined with the matrix switch to function as the host.

[00:26:17] Speaker 00:
But now it wants that host to be the remote.

[00:26:18] Speaker 00:
It wants the remote to be the recipient of these channels that have been separated.

[00:26:23] Speaker 00:
So CommScope is really trying to have it both ways.

[00:26:26] Speaker 00:
It's trying to say that the host is a host, and then the host is a remote.

[00:26:28] Speaker 00:
And it just depends on which argument it's making at the particular time.

[00:26:32] Speaker 00:
So paragraph 51, I think, should resolve this controversy of Wu that's at appendix 1191.

[00:26:39] Speaker 00:
It very clearly says that in the situation where there is a one-to-many configuration, one host, many remotes, it duplicates the serialized carrier channels.

[00:26:47] Speaker 00:
And so that is what we are doing, and for that reason it does not disclose selective transmission from the host to the remotes.

[00:26:53] Speaker 00:
Thank you.