act to follow right may please support this is an appeal from me she tapped decision concerning it into partes review the pending question one six five patent service to monitor position and shipping conditions for packages packages during their shipment to portal to support such monitoring a wireless device is within or a fix to each package petition the p t o and sought to invalidate all claims the board rendered decision finding all claims were proven invalid however the law in evidence shows otherwise generally speaking our complaint is that the board in properly relied on unreasonably broad and distorted claim constructions in order to salvage a deficient petition one specific issue is the phrase wireless tracking device which appears in several the independent claims this according to the board and it's not  at this point it was construed to be a device that is capable of monitoring both position and shipping conditions and also capable of wirelessly communicating wit saying that where it says that the wireless tracking device whether it's one you're going to pieces has to be on the package is the phrase is a wireless tracking device and it says it's a fixed or within a package petition has the burden of proof in this case and with respect to the wireless tracking device according to the board that device must do two things it must monitor position and it must monitor shipping conditions despite the fact that in the petition but it's only sept fourth that in their opinion the wireless tracking device was either what's called the sensors one one two six which is attached to a smaller item called cargo and separately they in this and these sensors are attached to the cargo but they're still with me in the back that would normally they're not within the package we're not with they're not within the trailer sometimes they may be within the trailer truck comes later and then package is moved into the truck so at that point that point is within the credit yes but with respect to where you're going with that with respect to claim twenty trailer or anything even larger than that would be portable by a person so they said either one either so called package works for them in our opinion we're focusing on the trailer and we're saying as with respect to claim twenty three that there's no way to thank you before double black person explain what we're playing twenty three came from that was added somewhat isn't that what that was a with respect to the portability of the package and claim twenty three as i mentioned fenix position for the construction of that was basically unlimited into as to packet size and unlimited to mechanical assistance such that it's capable of being moved our construction was  what we thought was more appropriate would be that it refers to a package capable of being carried by a person and the board went in sort of a weird direction their construction was basically a half way decided it and said it's it it's means that not excluding all forms of the chemical systems and as encompassing objects the size of a crate or refrigerator so to be fixed on or within a package and that it's portable it's got to be on the same package as opposed to the truck and the internal pa well there's that's just that's one point the case is somewhat confusing admittedly because the position started saying that either the things could be packages and either of the devices to monitor the sensors could be the wireless tracking device so they had sort of a broad view of things and then during the trial for the board  because of the construction of one wireless tracking devices it had to do two things the pitches position and the sensing and that's not available from either of them individually so then the board now i am i correct there was a current estimony from the expert is generally inconsistent would be my opinion reference so they sort of crafted the constructions to encompass the phrase in the in the reference and the other thing that's confusing well we were requested rehearing specifically to get clarification on how it is that the board is coming up with the notion that the trailer about basically blaming it on mike our side and i said i'd be venture does not demonstrate the claim twenty three requires that the wireless tracking device be whol exclusively affixed to the recited package or precludes the wireless striking device from being partially fixed so out of the blue they arrived at this theory that  now after they've taken two separate devices in combining them somehow and saying that's the wireless tracking device and that thing has to be attached to a package and now with respect to the package they're saying that they never really clarify how they getting over the two packets issue but they said that is it's enough to be partially a fix what is the  prosecution history tells us about the need for them it doesn't really tell assange thing about the meaning of portable that's why we're relying on the general ordinary meaning to one skilled in the art and there's a dictionary definition in the it's pretty clear in their decisions that they are relying on the smaller cargo one one three four to be the so called package and so they are saying that if you're to be saying that the wireless package right and then when it later goes into the truck and fedex is does that package become a different package it makes no sense and the two packages don't travel together and the devices are associated with these different packages so how they get from front to things the travel differently in time and space some people don't want and that's one of the first issue and then the second issue is kind of on top of that mass it has to be the package has to be portable by a person and to the extent that if the board is relying on that larger item the trailer  counsel loves a refrigerator because the refrigerator the board was presumably convinced that the refrigerator is portable by a person so what even if it had part thing refer to its cargo and has another thing referred to as a tractor trailer and the trailer is designed to receive various different cargo pieces and it is able to wirelessly communicate with those things but only when they are within the truck or and the the board did make some statements a doesn't seem to get you out of your problem it depends how you can sort of reference we're not directing your attention to that particular temporal argument we don't think we need  thirteen of course it's a preamble and if you look at the body of the claim actually i think it's as a package so it says for use with and so there is there could be an argument there but we didn't make that argument so i'm not going right into that no is which is within the frame so i think that maybe it makes sense to take one step back and look at what the claims rights because the claim says actually monitoring monitor right so the sensors eleven twenty six there on the packages they are right are providing information to the monitor eleven fourteen right the monitor is called a monitor and it is monitoring information on the conditions within the structure eleven sixteen i want i'm looking at what the board that gets so the boards that sense that you've got the sensors you can do the location information and the sensors you send information to the monitor and therefore the monitor is able to determine the conditions inside the truck right but the board says that the to work together in conjunction i dollars i'm not saying that it's that that's not the case we do have an alternative position of course where the monitor actually provides all of the functionality right right board to align well it's a look honestly i think it's a big you could say that the board did rely on that but i'm not making that argument as my primary argument here i'm saying that the board that into parts yes if that's ok first of all i think the issue is whether the devices right because the board said that the device here could be made up of two things in combination working ok ok but those two things then have to be honored in the  have to be honorifics the package so let's look at the monitor eleven fourteen as an example because i think that's where we're getting our twenty three right the monitor eleven fourteen this is a fixed or within the structure which is alive and sixteen right and the sensors eleven twenty six are our within right those are within for short and they're both within that within the reach and that's only assuming that we say the big structure whether it's a car from wherever rehearing decision that counsel referred to and it found that at least one of those components right of the device because there is no structure here right the specification actually says i'm not going to tell you what the structure is because it's not important to my he begins with i think it's actually twenty three i think it's appendix fourteen seventy four you're on our that's where he's dealing with the obvious that this could cause i can i just one thing with respect to th well just further down he does say a person warner still in the art would have understood that the sensors and monitor to be placed in any sized package and would not prevent a package from being able to from being capable of the room by person is that address where you're going ye explains that a structure can be anything pretty much and then i want twenty six it talks about how the structures are any types of structures that and they can be mobile of course that means that they can be moved right which is consistent with  no disclaimer of the scope or disavow the scope of this claim so the board looked at the plane in order i mean excuse me for this reasonable interpretation and said it had two dictionary it had actually was one  two parties reach emanation that's related to this case actually so you'll see that in looking at the whole record that there's a relationship there and you can see in the background of the invention section there's a reference to fedex in there as well so there it's really it 's really that focused but i encourage you to look at it i mean what we've cited in richard your honor your belly was we did cite to these points that a structure is something that's movable by a person ok which is consistent with the board construction of what portable by a person was the board said i don't need to decide whether or not something is moveable by a person with some kind of assistance or an or not although we believe the claim actually encompasses that one is again they took the position and we believe it's actually fair inconsistent with the specification there's no specification here that says that you can't have a device right a wireless tracking device is made up of two components ok i  truck it is labeled eleven thirty four which is an example of cargo right the specification and the board pointed this out as well but the specification in richard's explains that the individual cargo items can be large items such as a refrigerator for what it says is that at least a three way way so you're saying that you could have seven packages and then trucking one would have the monitor and one could have the sensor and those would all be covered i would say that the board construction yes that is consistent with the board's construction and that and there's and that is consistent with the specification there's no there's no limitation in this specific ation that says i can't have it that way i can't have these in fact when we argued your honor that the sensors ok because we actually argued for a construction that included sensors ok and the board rejected that in response recognizing the and owner's argument that sensors don't need to it says a chemical sensor can be provided with and it's optional it's there is no requirement and then i refer back to a column for lines twenty seven twenty nine of the one sixty five pattern says components have not been described you agree that the portable white person language includes all the objects with the trail all the objects that are transported for example by for that which is what the person include all items cargo within the trailer each one of them could be considered for this purpose of this argument yes portable by person and i think figure twelve shows several of is the prior art wirelessly communicates between the two devices and that the gist of that patent is what's called implosive radio communications it's the wireless linkage between them it