[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
Good morning, please be seated, ladies and gentlemen.

[00:00:10] Speaker 03:
We have six cases on the calendar this morning.

[00:00:14] Speaker 03:
Two from the P-Tab, one from the T-Tab, one from the District Court, one from the Court of Appeals for the Veterans' Claims, and one from the NSPB.

[00:00:31] Speaker 03:
There's quite a lot of solutions process.

[00:00:36] Speaker 03:
I'm not up on my Dutch, but I would guess it might be something like taking Phillips, you know it's Phillips, 2023, 1155, Mr. Courtney.

[00:00:52] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Judge Lurie.

[00:00:52] Speaker 02:
Robert Courtney from Fish and Richardson, representing Quectel.

[00:00:56] Speaker 02:
This first appeal, the 1155 appeal, is an IPR claim construction appeal.

[00:01:01] Speaker 02:
We're dealing with claims here relating to signaling for cell networks.

[00:01:05] Speaker 02:
So we have handsets and towers communicating with each other.

[00:01:08] Speaker 02:
The specific subject matter is the negotiation of initial control information for a communication that the handset and the tower are going to be making.

[00:01:17] Speaker 02:
And that word initial is at the center of the case.

[00:01:20] Speaker 02:
The board held

[00:01:21] Speaker 02:
that these claims are limited to the setup of new communications.

[00:01:28] Speaker 02:
We argued and we think the record ambiguously shows that these claims also cover restoration of interrupted communications, and that's important because it is dispositive to the interpretation of that term initial in the claims.

[00:01:40] Speaker 02:
The claims say certain data is initially transmitted from time to time.

[00:01:44] Speaker 02:
The board, we think, erroneously determined that initial meant that was the first time there had been such a communication on those channels.

[00:01:52] Speaker 02:
Because the patent says these claims also relate to restoration of interrupted connections, the board's construction doesn't work.

[00:02:01] Speaker 02:
That word initially has to be read in the context of interrupted connections.

[00:02:06] Speaker 02:
And we think everything bears that out.

[00:02:07] Speaker 02:
We begin with the claim.

[00:02:08] Speaker 01:
I understand your proposed construction.

[00:02:13] Speaker 01:
The first time particular control information is being transmitted, that's what the claim means by initial transmission, initially transmitted?

[00:02:26] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor, thank you.

[00:02:29] Speaker 02:
We believe that the claim has to be read, the initial event is the request for resources.

[00:02:34] Speaker 02:
There is no transmission of control information until after the acknowledgement is received, and then there's initial

[00:02:42] Speaker 01:
Transmission of control information has to be particular type of control message, right?

[00:02:48] Speaker 02:
It has to meet the requirements of the claim and then it has to be

[00:02:52] Speaker 02:
the first of the relevant communication strings.

[00:02:55] Speaker 02:
So we look at figure three of the patent, and the patent is describing a series of events that begin with the request for resources, and then move forward through the acknowledgement, the initial transmission of control information, and the initial transmission of data.

[00:03:09] Speaker 02:
It's initial in the sense that it's part of that, it's opening up that sequence of events.

[00:03:14] Speaker 04:
In the case of interrupted transmission, is there also an acknowledgement that takes place?

[00:03:21] Speaker 02:
In the case of an interrupted transmission where there's restoration, there would first be a request, you know, I'm back.

[00:03:28] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:03:28] Speaker 02:
Right, I came out of the tunnel or whatever it is.

[00:03:31] Speaker 02:
So there would be a request for resources, but it would be on a channel that had previously been used.

[00:03:35] Speaker 02:
So there's really no... There would still be an acknowledgement of their request.

[00:03:38] Speaker 02:
How do we know that?

[00:03:40] Speaker 02:
This is an aspect of the underlying standards, and there was discussion of those standards.

[00:03:46] Speaker 01:
I'm just wondering, where on the record did you argue that there would be this new acknowledgement, new request for resources, and then a new acknowledgement sent after there was an interruption?

[00:04:02] Speaker 01:
And then where did your experts say that, about there would be this new acknowledgement sent?

[00:04:10] Speaker 01:
So I want to... The uplink and downlink channels get established initially, right?

[00:04:15] Speaker 01:
And that's what the board thought initial meant.

[00:04:20] Speaker 01:
That's when you get your initial transmission of control information.

[00:04:23] Speaker 01:
That's when you get your initial transmission of data.

[00:04:26] Speaker 01:
And then you delay that initial transmission of data

[00:04:31] Speaker 01:
some time after the initial transmission of control information so that you allow the different stations to power levels to converge and synchronize, right?

[00:04:40] Speaker 01:
That's right.

[00:04:41] Speaker 01:
And so, structurally, all of that fits with the claim and it makes perfect sense.

[00:04:46] Speaker 01:
You have this other theory of the claim which seems to rest on the idea that maybe after an interruption on that established link,

[00:04:58] Speaker 01:
there can be a new request for resources after that interruption, and then a subsequent new acknowledgement.

[00:05:04] Speaker 01:
That's what I'm hearing you say today.

[00:05:06] Speaker 01:
I didn't see that said anywhere below.

[00:05:10] Speaker 01:
And so that's what I'm interested in seeing.

[00:05:13] Speaker 02:
So I have two thoughts in response to your question.

[00:05:16] Speaker 02:
I want to make sure I understand your question correctly.

[00:05:18] Speaker 02:
First, this idea that the claims apply to interrupted communications is not a creation of Quectel.

[00:05:22] Speaker 02:
That's in the specification, right?

[00:05:24] Speaker 02:
That's several points in the specification.

[00:05:26] Speaker 01:
That's if that aspect of the spec made it into the claim.

[00:05:29] Speaker 01:
That's a separate question.

[00:05:32] Speaker 02:
Fair enough, but this is not something we created.

[00:05:34] Speaker 02:
And then second, I would say we would contend when we interpret that term initially, we're setting our reference window.

[00:05:41] Speaker 02:
What are we initially as to what?

[00:05:44] Speaker 02:
The board thought it meant initially as to

[00:05:46] Speaker 02:
all time prior to the request.

[00:05:49] Speaker 01:
I'm having a hard time listening to you because I need to hear you show me where on the record you, your side, your expert discussed the idea of after an interruption there is this new request for resources that needs to go out and then there's a receipt of an acknowledgement in response to that request for resources after an interruption where on the record

[00:06:13] Speaker 01:
Did your experts say that?

[00:06:14] Speaker 02:
So I don't think we need an expert to say this.

[00:06:16] Speaker 02:
I think it's in the specification at the bottom of column four.

[00:06:19] Speaker 02:
I think it's also in column one.

[00:06:21] Speaker 01:
Where in column four does it say there will be, after an interruption, a new request for resources and then a subsequent acknowledgement in receipt in response to that new request for resources after an interruption?

[00:06:37] Speaker 01:
So I saw there that the connection was maintained.

[00:06:43] Speaker 01:
bottom of column four, top of column five.

[00:06:45] Speaker 01:
That's right.

[00:06:46] Speaker 01:
So why would there be a request for new resources and then the subsequent acknowledgement in response to that request for resources?

[00:06:53] Speaker 02:
So what we read, the bottom of column four and the top of column five, is it's saying there was zero communication.

[00:06:59] Speaker 02:
There was an extent connection.

[00:07:01] Speaker 02:
The channel existed and it still exists in memory.

[00:07:04] Speaker 02:
But that has gone silent.

[00:07:06] Speaker 02:
And the patent is saying

[00:07:09] Speaker 02:
The alleged invention here is a way to improve restoration of those connections, and that's going to include a request for resources by the mobile station.

[00:07:18] Speaker 02:
Where does it say that?

[00:07:21] Speaker 02:
I think we find it, you know,

[00:07:23] Speaker 02:
In the claims, we find it in the bottom of column four and five and in claim one.

[00:07:29] Speaker 02:
I am not aware.

[00:07:30] Speaker 01:
It doesn't say anything about a request for new resources and then subsequent acknowledgement.

[00:07:40] Speaker 01:
Does it?

[00:07:42] Speaker 02:
Other than saying that, you know, figure three depicts the invention, right, and when it describes figure three, it's not referring specifically to new connections or interruptions.

[00:07:51] Speaker 02:
It's saying figure three is the invention, figure three certainly depicts the request for resources.

[00:07:57] Speaker 01:
So... I guess to get them back to Jedwina's point, this whole question of the new acknowledgement.

[00:08:06] Speaker 01:
Judge Lane, I had to ask that question because your side never really developed this angle below, or in your briefing to us, that there would be a second acknowledgement.

[00:08:17] Speaker 01:
I, too, had that very same question.

[00:08:19] Speaker 01:
And now you're telling me, well, we don't have anybody saying that that's how it works after an interruption, but we didn't need to.

[00:08:27] Speaker 01:
And I'm concerned about that kind of an argument.

[00:08:30] Speaker 02:
So our argument, I want to be clear and make sure that we're all on the same page.

[00:08:35] Speaker 02:
Our argument is that these claims require showing a request, which is in LOMP, an acknowledgement, which is in LOMP.

[00:08:43] Speaker 02:
Those are not disputed.

[00:08:45] Speaker 02:
And then the required exchange of control information and data information on the timing of the claims required.

[00:08:52] Speaker 02:
The board said that we had failed to carry our burden there because we had not shown that there was not control information prior to the request.

[00:08:59] Speaker 02:
That was the board's analysis.

[00:09:01] Speaker 02:
Our intention is that's not what the claims require.

[00:09:03] Speaker 02:
The claims don't impose restrictions about what happened prior to the request.

[00:09:08] Speaker 02:
And we know that because that's the only way to interpret initially in the way the abstract does.

[00:09:13] Speaker 02:
The abstract says initially can include either restoration of interrupted communications or new communications.

[00:09:20] Speaker 01:
so i don't think that portion of the abstract uh... you didn't argue it to the board is that right in that in your claim construction argument below certainly directed the board to but the argument you're making to us now about the quoted language from the abstract you're presenting to us now that particular language you didn't actually push it in front of the board and say this supports our claim construction well and i think uh... i think there's a right

[00:09:47] Speaker 01:
Is that right?

[00:09:48] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:09:48] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:09:50] Speaker 01:
So where then did you say, hey, look, there's an interesting statement here in the abstract.

[00:09:55] Speaker 01:
So please look at it, Patent Board, in support of our construction for the word initial transmit.

[00:10:01] Speaker 02:
At the time, our colleagues representing Phillips filed their still reply.

[00:10:07] Speaker 01:
Look, you said the answer is no.

[00:10:10] Speaker 01:
And I said, fine.

[00:10:11] Speaker 01:
Then show me where it is.

[00:10:13] Speaker 01:
Where is it in your joint dependence?

[00:10:15] Speaker 01:
Where can I see that the board is on notice that you will rely on this particular passage from the abstract in support of your construction for the word initially transmitted?

[00:10:26] Speaker 01:
I hope I don't have to ask yet again this same question.

[00:10:30] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:10:31] Speaker 02:
We do not direct the board to the abstract on this point, but... The answer was yes.

[00:10:36] Speaker 02:
There's a procedural element which I think has to be... The answer was yes.

[00:10:41] Speaker 02:
That's correct.

[00:10:42] Speaker 02:
I think it requires context, which is that my colleagues representing Phillips, at the time of their sole reply, took the view that the claims covered interrupted connections.

[00:10:53] Speaker 02:
So this was not a dispute going into the hearing.

[00:10:56] Speaker 02:
At the hearing, our colleagues representing Phillips took a new position and said, these claims do not cover the restoration of interrupted connections.

[00:11:04] Speaker 02:
We were not on notice of that argument prior to the oral hearing.

[00:11:08] Speaker 02:
We presented at the oral hearing an argument fully consistent with what I'm describing today.

[00:11:13] Speaker 02:
Judge Chen, you are correct.

[00:11:14] Speaker 02:
That argument at the oral hearing did not include specific citation to the transcript.

[00:11:19] Speaker 02:
Oh, I'm sorry, to the appendix, or the abstract.

[00:11:22] Speaker 02:
But it was wholly consistent with the argument that Quetel has made from the beginning of this, which is that these claims cover both restoration of interrupted connections and new connections, and that that term initially has to be read in that context.

[00:11:38] Speaker 02:
I am unaware of any case from this court finding a party has forfeited its right to rely on part of the intrinsic record.

[00:11:47] Speaker 02:
because it did not respond at an oral hearing with a citation that it could not have reasonably prepared based on its adversary's briefing going into that hearing.

[00:11:58] Speaker 04:
You did give an opportunity to respond and participate in the claim construction, correct?

[00:12:05] Speaker 02:
Yes, General, certainly.

[00:12:06] Speaker 02:
And we took the position throughout that.

[00:12:07] Speaker 04:
That's what we're talking about here, the claim construction.

[00:12:11] Speaker 02:
Yes, but prior to the board's decision, I don't think it's overstating it to say that the board's decision turns on the idea, at least in highly relevant part, that these patents no longer uses the term initially transmitted to refer to communication happening after interruption, restoration of interruption.

[00:12:32] Speaker 02:
That's on Appendix 13, I believe.

[00:12:36] Speaker 02:
That statement is incorrect.

[00:12:38] Speaker 02:
It's the board's statement that's incorrect.

[00:12:40] Speaker 02:
Had we been on notice that Phillips was going to pursue this idea prior to the oral hearing, certainly we would have prepared that.

[00:12:51] Speaker 02:
We heard this argument at the community meeting.

[00:12:53] Speaker 01:
If you've shown the claim construction, is that on the phone?

[00:12:59] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:13:00] Speaker 01:
This patent expired, correct?

[00:13:03] Speaker 02:
Yes, that's correct.

[00:13:04] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:13:05] Speaker 02:
However, this patent is in litigation.

[00:13:07] Speaker 03:
Also, I'm initially transmitting to you the fact that you're into your bubble time.

[00:13:13] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:13:15] Speaker 03:
We'll serve it for you.

[00:13:17] Speaker 03:
Mr. Beck.

[00:13:19] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:13:20] Speaker 00:
May it please accord George Beck for Rappelli-Philip.

[00:13:24] Speaker 00:
I'll start by addressing the points that were just raised.

[00:13:29] Speaker 00:
First, in terms of request and acknowledgement, as the Board found,

[00:13:35] Speaker 00:
that the only discussion of request and acknowledgement is in respect to the embodiment that does pertain to the claims, which is the FIC 3 embodiment.

[00:13:45] Speaker 00:
And that is an improvement over what's shown in FIC 2, which explicitly discusses start of a transmission, which follows a request and acknowledgement.

[00:13:55] Speaker 00:
So there's a request for resources followed by an acknowledgement, and that establishes the channels that are at issue.

[00:14:03] Speaker 00:
there's no debate that that is an embodiment that the claims are directed to.

[00:14:09] Speaker 00:
Now the issue about whether the claims apply to a situation where transmissions resumed on existing channels

[00:14:21] Speaker 00:
That, in our view, is a manufactured dispute.

[00:14:29] Speaker 00:
It's saying that there has to be no exclusion of preferred embodiments, but there's a presupposition that the interruption is actually a preferred embodiment.

[00:14:40] Speaker 04:
What happens in a situation where you have an initial transmission, leather request,

[00:14:47] Speaker 04:
and you have acknowledgement, and then you have the initial flow of data in the data channel, right?

[00:14:55] Speaker 04:
What happens if there's no acknowledgement?

[00:14:57] Speaker 04:
There's no transmission at all?

[00:14:59] Speaker 00:
There'd be no establishment of those channels.

[00:15:01] Speaker 04:
So this is, you know, a situation I wouldn't... So there has to be an acknowledgement of the request.

[00:15:06] Speaker 00:
Correct, Your Honor.

[00:15:07] Speaker 04:
The base station's request of the mobile station, wake up, we're about to make a transmission.

[00:15:14] Speaker 04:
Mobile station says, okay, I'm ready.

[00:15:16] Speaker 04:
And that acknowledgement begins the floor of the data content.

[00:15:22] Speaker 04:
But not the data, the control.

[00:15:28] Speaker 00:
What the invention's directed to and what FIC 3 is talking about is a request from the mobile station.

[00:15:34] Speaker 00:
So I want to make a call.

[00:15:35] Speaker 00:
So I make a request.

[00:15:36] Speaker 00:
The base station checks to see if there's available resources.

[00:15:39] Speaker 00:
Is there a capacity for that?

[00:15:42] Speaker 00:
and it sends an acknowledgment, that results in establishment of these dedicated control channels and then uplink channel, meaning transmission.

[00:15:52] Speaker 04:
And if there's no acknowledgment, there's no transmission of the control data.

[00:15:55] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:15:56] Speaker 04:
And the column four to five... And let's talk about where there's an interruption.

[00:16:00] Speaker 04:
Is there a requirement there for acknowledgment?

[00:16:05] Speaker 04:
Why would you need an acknowledgement if there's already an open line of information?

[00:16:13] Speaker 00:
You wouldn't, Your Honor, and there's no evidence of that.

[00:16:15] Speaker 00:
The interruption occurs when, say, you're talking on the phone and you go under an underpass, the example we gave.

[00:16:24] Speaker 00:
There might be a loss of transmission on the control channels and the data channel.

[00:16:30] Speaker 00:
So that interrupts this power control problem.

[00:16:32] Speaker 04:
But there's no request there either.

[00:16:33] Speaker 00:
No, it says the logical connection is maintained.

[00:16:36] Speaker 00:
That means that the request of acknowledgement has already happened, so there's no need for a new request of acknowledgement.

[00:16:43] Speaker 04:
So that part of the specification is directed to... So I'm not correct, but the only time you would require to have this request, acknowledgement, and then the initial flow of the control data is when you establish the initial transmission.

[00:17:00] Speaker 00:
You're correct, Your Honor.

[00:17:01] Speaker 00:
And the board points to that.

[00:17:03] Speaker 00:
It would refer to the description

[00:17:05] Speaker 00:
from figures two to three where there's reference to start of transmission.

[00:17:10] Speaker 00:
I think the specification, the fair read of it, is it's generally addressing problems with multiple solutions to when there's a disruption of some sort, either at the start or an interruption, there's generally a problem with this lack of convergence.

[00:17:26] Speaker 00:
But the claims here

[00:17:28] Speaker 00:
are directed to the solution of Fig 3, which is the only volume that talks about initial transmission of control information.

[00:17:35] Speaker 04:
But what happens if the call drops altogether?

[00:17:38] Speaker 00:
Then you'd have to restart.

[00:17:40] Speaker 04:
And then at that point in time, do you have the sub-process starting, the request acknowledgement, the initial

[00:17:51] Speaker 00:
Yes, that's correct, Your Honor.

[00:17:53] Speaker 00:
So if you get a call fail, you have to establish a new data channel and corresponding control channels.

[00:18:01] Speaker 00:
That's what Fig 3 is addressing.

[00:18:04] Speaker 00:
And as the Board found, there's no link to the claim language for the embodiment that

[00:18:13] Speaker 00:
the description that starts from column four to column five.

[00:18:16] Speaker 00:
In fact, that's directed to another solution that is another patent that we'll talk about shortly.

[00:18:23] Speaker 00:
With respect to the abstract,

[00:18:26] Speaker 00:
There was citation to the abstract by both parties in reference to the general problem, the problems associated with loss of power control.

[00:18:36] Speaker 00:
There was no citation to the abstract in support of a particular message construction, whatever that means.

[00:18:45] Speaker 00:
The first time we heard this construction offered by Coquettel, that initial transmission of control information

[00:18:54] Speaker 00:
is referring to a particular message was at the hearing.

[00:18:58] Speaker 00:
And I don't think it's fair to say that that was fairly predicated by anything in the SOAR reply.

[00:19:05] Speaker 01:
Let's assume for the moment that we need to consider the entirety of the patent to construe this claim, including the abstract.

[00:19:14] Speaker 01:
So the abstract arguably opens the door to thinking about initial transmissions to include

[00:19:22] Speaker 01:
not only the real initial transmission, but also a transmission after a pause.

[00:19:29] Speaker 01:
So what do you have to say about that?

[00:19:33] Speaker 00:
You know, there's a parenthetical reference to pause, but there's no reference to a requested acknowledgement, which is what I think is the key thing a person of ordinary skill and the art understands is the establishment of the chant.

[00:19:45] Speaker 00:
So I don't think the abstract supports this idea that there

[00:19:52] Speaker 00:
that the claimed invention relates to the interruption described in columns four to five.

[00:20:00] Speaker 00:
I'm also not aware.

[00:20:01] Speaker 01:
The rest of the patent for columns one through four, it seems to pretty consistently talk about initial transmissions after you start up the communication with all and establish all these channels as a separate thought from

[00:20:18] Speaker 01:
transmissions after a pause or interruption, and then have a retransmission.

[00:20:26] Speaker 01:
So it seems like the first few columns of that make those two things separate thoughts.

[00:20:32] Speaker 01:
But the abstract here seems to be in a little bit of tension with that.

[00:20:37] Speaker 01:
So I guess we have to try to reconcile exactly what's going on.

[00:20:41] Speaker 00:
Well, I would just say, Your Honor, the abstract, I'm not aware of an authority saying you have to construe the claim to match the abstract.

[00:20:50] Speaker 00:
I think it's fair to say, had this been raised to the board and to Phillips, we could have addressed it below.

[00:20:59] Speaker 00:
We didn't have that opportunity.

[00:21:01] Speaker 00:
And I do think that specific argument, at least, has been forfeited.

[00:21:06] Speaker 00:
But it comes down to the substance of it, Your Honor.

[00:21:08] Speaker 00:
I think that the abstract itself does not mention requests and acknowledgment, and that is the key distinction.

[00:21:19] Speaker 01:
After all these channels are established,

[00:21:25] Speaker 01:
There's control information going back and forth.

[00:21:29] Speaker 01:
Whether there's an interruption or no interruption, there's control information going on those channels.

[00:21:36] Speaker 01:
But the transmission of that control information, none of that could be considered a request for resources.

[00:21:43] Speaker 01:
Is that right?

[00:21:44] Speaker 00:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:21:45] Speaker 00:
The board addressed that issue.

[00:21:47] Speaker 00:
You know, we had made a point in the response that the claims specific about initial transmission on the uplink and downlink control channels.

[00:21:57] Speaker 00:
Quartel objected to our reference to any information at any time, and we

[00:22:04] Speaker 00:
made the point and the board agreed in the survey apply that that's a particular channel and that's the one established after the acknowledgement.

[00:22:11] Speaker 00:
There's a reference to additional signaling that may occur in UMTS embodiments and the board agreed that that's referring to transmission on other channels, not the channel that the claim's talking about.

[00:22:25] Speaker 00:
Now there's channels, control channels used to establish, to carry the request and the acknowledgement, of course.

[00:22:33] Speaker 00:
But the dedicated channel for using the example of a call for that service is the uplink and downlink control channels that are shown in FIX 2 and 3.

[00:22:45] Speaker 00:
And it's the uplink data channel that's really concerned with the patent.

[00:22:52] Speaker 00:
And there's nothing, no reference to establishment.

[00:22:56] Speaker 00:
anywhere beyond what's described in the relevant embodiment.

[00:23:01] Speaker 00:
To your point, Judge Chen, I think in the background and going forward, including the description of Fig 4,

[00:23:11] Speaker 00:
there's a distinction made between a start of a transmission or a retransmission over an existing channel.

[00:23:21] Speaker 00:
And again, existing channels mean channels that were established in response to the request that I acknowledged.

[00:23:29] Speaker 03:
Perhaps this is an expired patent.

[00:23:32] Speaker 03:
Is the litigation ongoing other than with QuikTel?

[00:23:35] Speaker 00:
There's a litigation pending against QuikTel and two other parties, Your Honor.

[00:23:41] Speaker 00:
One other point I wanted to make briefly is this is in our view kind of a so what.

[00:23:51] Speaker 00:
The board actually addressed this issue.

[00:23:54] Speaker 00:
It said we don't agree that the claims cover a situation where there's an interruption on existing channels, where there's a suspension of data, suspension of control information for a time period.

[00:24:06] Speaker 00:
It said but even if we do, you have a failure of proof.

[00:24:11] Speaker 00:
So they mapped these claims primarily to the LOMP reference.

[00:24:17] Speaker 00:
And they identified signaling that results in creation of a switch in speed.

[00:24:25] Speaker 00:
And they said, well, that signaling, that's the initial transmission of control information.

[00:24:31] Speaker 00:
When we asked our expert,

[00:24:32] Speaker 00:
You know, what specific channels are you talking about?

[00:24:35] Speaker 00:
He couldn't tell us.

[00:24:36] Speaker 00:
His lump described a whole bunch of channels, and he couldn't point to which one it was.

[00:24:41] Speaker 00:
We pointed it out to the board.

[00:24:43] Speaker 00:
I think there was an acknowledgment of that evidence to the board during the hearing.

[00:24:47] Speaker 00:
And so the board wrote up its opinion and said, well, we don't think the clay construction is right, but we'll address it anyway.

[00:24:55] Speaker 00:
And what they said as to this failure proof was, if we look at your mapping, we still don't know

[00:25:03] Speaker 00:
regardless of whether it's an interruption or not, that what you're saying is the initial transmission of control information, Coctail, is actually the very first transmission on the uplink and downlink control channels, because we don't know even what control channels you're actually talking about.

[00:25:21] Speaker 00:
So I think what I understood from the briefing from Coctail is that

[00:25:28] Speaker 00:
all these problems would be solved, meaning they could address this failure proof if the court was to reverse the board and accept this particular message construction.

[00:25:43] Speaker 00:
But there's multiple problems with a particular message construction.

[00:25:48] Speaker 00:
The board pointed out there's nothing in the expressed language of the claims that support it.

[00:25:54] Speaker 00:
There's nothing in the specification.

[00:25:56] Speaker 00:
There's no reference to

[00:25:59] Speaker 00:
even a message in the specification, but much less to a particular message.

[00:26:05] Speaker 00:
The invention itself is completely agnostic about the type of information.

[00:26:11] Speaker 00:
It's taking transmissions following a situation where there hasn't been any, or in the case of an interruption, there was

[00:26:21] Speaker 00:
there was a suspension, so there's no signal to measure.

[00:26:26] Speaker 00:
Everything in the patent is describing a situation where you're not able to converge your power loop.

[00:26:34] Speaker 00:
What that means is for power control, it's necessary to get feedback from the base station.

[00:26:42] Speaker 00:
Mobile has to transmit.

[00:26:43] Speaker 00:
Base station says,

[00:26:45] Speaker 00:
that signals too weak or it's too strong and it says a command telling you to just increase or decrease.

[00:26:52] Speaker 00:
Quartel gives the impression that that's a message saying set the power at a certain level.

[00:26:58] Speaker 00:
But that's not what a power control command is, which the patent itself refers to.

[00:27:04] Speaker 00:
It's just a simple go up or go down to try to converge.

[00:27:09] Speaker 00:
So if turning to the particular message construction, that's completely divorced to what the whole problem and solution is in the patent.

[00:27:20] Speaker 00:
The specific emphasis on FIG 3 is there's nothing to measure because those channels don't exist.

[00:27:29] Speaker 00:
So what we're going to do is delay the data transmission, and this is specifically the solution that Pat says.

[00:27:37] Speaker 00:
We're going to delay it for a time period

[00:27:40] Speaker 00:
sufficient for the for conversions of the power.

[00:27:48] Speaker 04:
So what happens when we have a, like the example that we've been throwing around, you go into a bridge and your call stops and then you come out the other end and you reconnect it, right?

[00:28:02] Speaker 04:
What's going on in the background while you're in the tunnel?

[00:28:06] Speaker 04:
Is there an attempt to

[00:28:08] Speaker 04:
Does the data continue to flow?

[00:28:14] Speaker 04:
Do you still have an open control channel, control data channel that's open?

[00:28:19] Speaker 04:
Obviously, they're still in an attempt to communicate, right?

[00:28:24] Speaker 00:
There's two situations, Your Honor.

[00:28:26] Speaker 00:
I think you're referring to the situation where there's basically a temporary interruption

[00:28:32] Speaker 00:
And that's what the patent refers to, is that that can be either intentional or it can be unintentional.

[00:28:38] Speaker 00:
So that's an unintentional interruption.

[00:28:40] Speaker 00:
But the channels have been established, the basis.

[00:28:44] Speaker 04:
And there's a real connection after that temporary interruption.

[00:28:48] Speaker 04:
Has there been a delay of the data channel at that time?

[00:28:54] Speaker 00:
First of all, I wouldn't call that a reconnection.

[00:28:57] Speaker 00:
It would just be a resumption of transmission on channels that already exist.

[00:29:02] Speaker 04:
Okay, so has there been a delay in the transmission of data?

[00:29:06] Speaker 00:
There's no description of a delay that follows resumption.

[00:29:11] Speaker 04:
There's no acknowledgement by the mobile station saying, I'm back, I'm open for communication?

[00:29:19] Speaker 00:
If the logical connection has been maintained, there's no need for that.

[00:29:22] Speaker 00:
It'd be redundant.

[00:29:23] Speaker 00:
There's no point in that.

[00:29:24] Speaker 00:
that there's already a request to make now.

[00:29:27] Speaker 04:
I guess I'm trying to understand if at that point in time there's been a delay in the transmission of control data.

[00:29:35] Speaker 00:
There's a suspension in this situation.

[00:29:39] Speaker 00:
There's a suspension of the transmission on the control and data lines.

[00:29:45] Speaker 00:
That loses power control.

[00:29:47] Speaker 00:
And this different unclaimed solution, solution of other patents.

[00:29:53] Speaker 04:
The control information hasn't ceased.

[00:29:56] Speaker 00:
If it's unintentional, I imagine that you could have a situation where the

[00:30:02] Speaker 00:
The phone's trying to send information, but there's interference, and it's not getting through.

[00:30:06] Speaker 00:
So the base station can't take measurements at that point.

[00:30:10] Speaker 00:
So it might lose power control.

[00:30:12] Speaker 00:
But it doesn't try to solve that problem by having a delay like the phone.

[00:30:17] Speaker 04:
If you look through the figure out at that point, there's been a delay in the transmission of the control information.

[00:30:25] Speaker 04:
Because it seems to me that that's a case in which it's going to kick off this whole process again.

[00:30:29] Speaker 04:
You have a request of that knowledge.

[00:30:32] Speaker 04:
I mean, because if there's been an interruption in the control information, then there's no information guiding the power level or anything of that nature in the transmission.

[00:30:44] Speaker 00:
If the logical connection was lost, you'd get a drop call, start over.

[00:30:50] Speaker 00:
That's a new start again.

[00:30:52] Speaker 00:
So you establish new channels with a request and acknowledgement.

[00:30:55] Speaker 00:
If the logical connection is maintained, which is what column four to five is talking about, you don't need to do that.

[00:31:04] Speaker 03:
Do you have my final closing thought?

[00:31:06] Speaker 00:
I think I've covered it.

[00:31:08] Speaker 00:
I think the board got it right in its claim construction and addressed the specific issue that Quachtel is raising here.

[00:31:16] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:31:17] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:31:17] Speaker 03:
Mr. Courtney, you have three minutes for a bottle of EMU.

[00:31:25] Speaker 02:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:31:27] Speaker 02:
I'd like to address a few things that came up.

[00:31:29] Speaker 02:
The first is this notion that came out that I heard my colleague representing Phillips say that the idea of claiming after an interruption, I'm sorry, covering restoration of communication after an interruption is unclaimed.

[00:31:43] Speaker 02:
That is not what they wrote to the board in their stir reply.

[00:31:47] Speaker 02:
So when briefing closed before the board on my appendix 423,

[00:31:52] Speaker 02:
Phillips wrote, they were describing the purpose of the delay, and they said, the purpose of the delay is to facilitate convergence to avoid loss of data and or interference of the devices at the start of a transmission or after an interruption.

[00:32:05] Speaker 02:
So at the time briefing closed, we reasonably understood Phillips was not disputing that these claims covered embodiments that involved restoration after interruption.

[00:32:17] Speaker 02:
Another idea that came out during my colleague's presentation was the idea that there's kind of separate thoughts in this patent.

[00:32:28] Speaker 02:
One line of analysis about restoration of interrupted connections and one line of analysis about new connections.

[00:32:34] Speaker 02:
Respectfully, I don't think this figures or the written description or the claims bear that out.

[00:32:39] Speaker 02:
When we review the specification, we see an inventor saying, here's my technology.

[00:32:46] Speaker 02:
I've developed a technology.

[00:32:48] Speaker 02:
Its application, it is useful for either restoration of interrupted connections or new connections.

[00:32:53] Speaker 02:
It has two applications.

[00:32:55] Speaker 02:
It's a fairly brief description.

[00:32:57] Speaker 02:
There's not a lot beyond that.

[00:32:58] Speaker 02:
But we see nowhere that the inventor says, here's the path for new connections.

[00:33:03] Speaker 02:
Here's the path for interrupted connections.

[00:33:06] Speaker 02:
What we see is statements that the same technology is usable in both circumstances.

[00:33:12] Speaker 02:
And then I do want to get to the board's analysis of where it purported to say under Quetel's construction, it would reach the same result.

[00:33:22] Speaker 02:
We believe these claims fairly interpreted

[00:33:25] Speaker 02:
impose no requirement at all about what happened prior to the request for resources.

[00:33:33] Speaker 02:
All it may require is to show what's written, a request for resources, an acknowledgement, and the required initial transmission of control information and data.

[00:33:46] Speaker 02:
Lomp has those elements.

[00:33:47] Speaker 02:
I think the board's theory, while you failed to show a restoration of an interrupted connection,

[00:33:52] Speaker 02:
We believe that's not a requirement of these claims.

[00:33:54] Speaker 02:
It's certainly not expressly written in any of the claims.

[00:33:57] Speaker 02:
We're describing here claims 11 through 17.

[00:34:00] Speaker 02:
And it's not present by implication.

[00:34:02] Speaker 02:
And in fact, the abstract specifically contradicts it.

[00:34:06] Speaker 02:
And I would direct the panel, if I may, to that abstract while it's preparing its decision.

[00:34:12] Speaker 02:
Happy to answer any questions?

[00:34:15] Speaker 03:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:34:16] Speaker 03:
Both counsel, the case is submitted.

[00:34:22] Speaker 02:
We understand that the panel prefers that we switch tables.