eleven fifty eight in re personalized media scott good afternoon good afternoon your honor welcome made please a court want to be a basic problems with the decision by the board here and the argument it's made by the solicitor and the director is is the way in which the the traditional way that this court has annunciation how claim construction should be  conducted and how then it construed claims should be applied to a reference it was ignored what happened here and i think it's one of the fundamental errors in the board's decision was let me just back up and say one thing that the board was under a great deal of strain this examiner here had numerous rejections for each of the claims and of course for the page limit and everything in the size of the appeal some of the board's decision to some degree appears to be cursory i don't think i believe it took its job seriously but what what it did wrong was to look look at the references and then apply them to the climbs without giving serious construction and consideration to the way in which you construe a claim and then apply it to a reference and so it's against that backdrop that you have to look at what was done here and so again the important point is how how do you can screw the limitations that are at issue here and really of course they're just taking the the three of the claims of the pat six seven and ten deal with what's referred to either as a non standard television transmission or more correctly looking at the claim limitation in ten a television transmission which is not a standard television signal or in the clay case of claims seven six and seven a a separately defined television transmission which is other than standard video or audio television right now again to really understand how this is him you know how do you construe these terms have to look at the disclosure of the pattern an initially and then the way of course of first the way the language is in the claims but important here how the the the applicant has defined specifically it is that a separately defined transmission is or it is going back to the disclosure of the patent the patent has to do with including imbedded data in television transmissions of several different types the applicant specifically discloses that the data can be embedded in an analog television signal in the video portion of that particularly for example in the vertical blanking animal he alternatively discloses that it can be in the audio portion but he also refers to and specifically defines a so called separate  define transmission which is intended to be a purely digital signal now what happens if you see in the disclosure the the in the the in disk in the pictures that are in the  briefs there's a signal decoder and that signal decoder receives a transmitter receive a transmission to a particular of a particular frequency want to give us a cite to the yeah that's a good look in the how it operates ok and what happens is you have a specific frequency of interest which is can be one of these various alternatives but what the pattern discloses specifically is that the specially defined frequency needs to be a digital signal because it's imposed either on a separate frequency or a separate particular component and it once it's detected it is transferred directly to a digital detector now ok but the the important point here is that in all of the other a line receiver and then to be inserted into the digital detector whereas the specially defined frequency or transmission is defined as being separate from those other two lines of video on audio and then it can because it's already a digital signal beast directly submitted to the digital detector again what the what the claim specifies is that you have these various alternatives and that this particular claim is specifically directed to the digital embodiment that shown in figure just talks about the television program transmission being separately defined from standard analog video and audio tele as they claim is fairly fairly broad i would suggest to you honor that that is not the case it is well it's it doesn't say that it's different in any particular way that was my point but be it what it says it is it that the term specially defined is used in a particular but nonetheless it you did it says the program to transmission being separately defined from standard analog video and analog television there's there's nothing that says that's separately defined has a particular meaning and  in fact in the patent office a patent office is entitled to interpret claims given them and giving them their broadest reasonable interpretation and the argument as i understand from the office is that at least with respect to the shutter lee reference there's a reference that converts the audio into a digital signature it's a signal and then embeds that in the video which is not a standard analog these these claims particularly six and seven have been here before and are the subject of a prior decision and what the court held and they when it considered these claims the last time was that a transmission was a particular group of signals that were imposed or envelop in a particular carrier therefore what it's saying is you have a a group of of signals that are going to drive a television now what what happens is and that's the important point when you're talking about whether the signal is standard and not you're not talking about for example whether you're imbedding  digital data but to an analog signal which was in fact conventional and standard in one nine hundred eighty one when this patent was filed for what you're talking about is the composition of the signal that drives the television so in an analog signal you have a portion of the signal that drives the electron gun back and forth the signals you have the portion of the signal for example that particular intensity luminance you have the portion that tells you what the colors in it and that's that transmission that standard or not because that's the format of the signal the drives that television receiver to give you the picture you want the adding of additional digital data to that standardized signal was conventional and known the very term used by the patent office in  yes because the video is standard so you could you could see the video but could you hear the audio trance well that that's what's not clear from charlotte surely is what he's what he's talking about  i would submit that shutter leak doesn't doesn't suggest that you can you can obtain the audio signal on a standard television because it's a different system when i know what he's talking about is an alternative which again was conventional nine hundred eighty one of having an audio sub carrier in which you would impose a digital signal or in this case instead of separately imposing it to get of stereo sort of situation you would take that signal and place it in the vertical blanking interval but that doesn't change the basic format of the signal because it's got to have in order for the television receiver to receive it it's got to have the audio sub carrier it's going to be stripped off it's got to have all of the composition of the video so it's simply a standard video television signal in which you have placed an alternative type of data that data  invention i just want to speak for a moment about what the board did here because the board didn't do anything wrong nor has demonstrated that they did do anything wrong they don't point anywhere to the board's decision where this allegedly mix up of the order in which construction and then anticipation analysis is performed and in fact they can't do that because the board did exactly what they say the board is supposed to do and at page a for the record in a sixty two of the record is where the board has a standalone construction of the claim and then moves into the anticipation analysis there is no requirement as this course recently said in john that a certain procedural mechanism be used to reject  what's important under section one thirty two is that an applicant or a patent in the case of a reexamination is put on notice of the office's position well enough so that they can respond and that clearly was done here so i don't think that the board did anything procedurally wrong but i'd like to step back just for a second and take a look at the technology because i think it's it's what's helpful here is to realize just how broad they say their invention is in their blue brief and in their patent and just how broadly they've claimed it and the way they characterize their invention in their flu briefing page nine is they say their invention is to take some digital signals and embed them into a standard television signal that mimics what their patent says a page a one fifty in the background of the invention that they take additional information and they embed it in a television signal and that's precisely how they've claimed it now judge when asked well isn't what happens in shutter release isn't it isn't it a different analog video and audio signal and what mr scott did is he explain why it's not a standard video signal or why it is a standard video signal but that's not what the claim requires the claim requires that it be a separate transmission is a separate transmission and that's because shirley strips off the audio digitize it encrypts it enhances it and then injects it into the video signal along with the code that allows the receiving does mr scott said repeatedly that their invention the way they claimed it in for example claim six is that it's digital and he points to figure two nowhere in the description of figure two a is that the carrier gets stripped off so the way things like this are transmitted if there's one wave that goes up very fast up and down that's the carrier up and down changes its characteristics a demodulator strips out the carrier so you're left with the information signal that transmission then gets sent to those three paths when we get down to path cd which is about sixty two it says in the third designated c inputs the separately to found defined transmission to a digital detector thirty eight which detects signal information embedded in any other information portion it doesn't say that the other information portion has to be digital and in fact there's no way to glean that from this figure because it has a digital detector in path c it's there to detect the digital information just like the digital detectors and path a and b to checked the digital information and perhaps most importantly from a sort of a global claim construction perspective it's clear how to recite that something is digital or analog if what they meant in their claim was it had to be digital they could have easily said that there's nothing in patton that suggests they invented the transmission of digital television and our position is as we describe in our brief here that all that's required is that the transmission that has this digital information inserted to it is somehow different from a normal transmission which is precisely what shirley has shetterly as of course cumulative of the other references the other references have additional information embedded just as well mr scott did not discuss claim fifty six i'm happy to answer any questions about playing fifty six but if the court has nine we would rest on our briefs as mr scott just did you know on a very good thank incorrect to say that the this invention was directed soley to the embedding of data into one type of transmission the particularly at the at one fifty six that i that i referred to earlier and also the court might look at the disclosure of the patent a two thirty two there is a specific disclosure of of of our purely digital applications what and that refers directly to the past c embodiment that we looked at when spec r a one fifty six and what happens here is that the panty has disclosed that there are two well for example in a in a analog transmission you have to take the the data to the signal and if it's a video you have to conformant to drive the the electron gun of the of the of the device but what you have to do if you've imbedded digital data and this and this is shown in figure two a you have to take the digital data that's another particular line extracted and then then it can be in a digital format after you've from that line and then you send it to the digital detective in the case of the audio you have to have an audio detector a high bandpass filter to because you're going to put the data at the highest frequency and then you send it to the digital detector in the past seen compartment because it's already in a digital format you send it directly that a detector and both of the references that i referred to in one fifty six and also in the other portion of the of the patent dealing with example see that is made clear you referred us to page two thirty two of the appendix yes are there any particular column one seventy four ok all right thank you very much your time has expired the case is submitted