i'd like to begin with the meaning of internet protocol one of one of the two important claim construction terms in this in this particular case and  multiple internet protocols and we see that for example in the claim language the claim language is specific in that if i may when one says performing a first conversion converting the transmission from a first for match to a second for matching the second formatting being internet protocol and clean sixteen says it is it is internet protocol it's important to realize that the claim language itself doesn't say an internet emphasise the importance of the fact that in claim one internet is a small right what our position is that the capitalization of internet protocol whether it's internet protocol that we're case i lowercase p or internet protocol capital i capital p does not matter it's still only one internet protocol and if i me that distinction or that that is further explained when we look at the conversion and the sending steps because our position is that you can't look at internet protocol in a vacuum you just can't say well what is in a protocol mean well there's no definite specific definition which is correct but when you look at how it's used in the conversion spending step to look at how the specification uses them you begin to see that there cannot be moved a poor calls because there is only one system has never pointed to any other protocol in the patent other than the ip of t c p ip when we look at the conversion that's important because figure eight which is which shows what the conversion converters linked to a variety of networks you have a t m frame relay voice telephone systems and also internet looka so we do have multiple networks when you look at the there's three blocks in that figure and those blocks have a telephone server and internet server and those are network using t c p ip and you see even those blocks which are  yes and then there's other cases that talk about how when she uses specifications for the client so can you explain why this is in a situation where you're trying to read virgin monument into decline i'm glad you asked that yes we have a single term internet protocol and we have a single disclosure in the specification which is ip of t c p ip the i'm not trying to we're not trying to take a broad term in the claims and say no no no we actually want to limit it to a narrower embodiment in a specification what is actually exactly what we're trying to do when there's nothing to narrow because we only have one internet portal called disclosed and let me give you i think this is a good i have a problem with your case my problem with your case is this you had an opportunity when you wrote this plane these planes and when you  your terms you didn't know where in your written description or anywhere in the patent is there a simple definition of this key term why could that possibly be if it was so important to make it clear what internet protocol you were talking about why wouldn't you have to find it in one hundred five the standard for ip was i p v four and that particular document shows that the term internet protocol to all capitals internet protocol capital high capital p c the internet is in our reply brief at page thirty  transfer mode by using a transmission control protocol internet protocol camera which is a set of protocols of l by the department of defense so like the similar computers across a variety of other networks of protocols that step is sending to the internet which goes back into the conversion step which the conversion step if you remember at point that the converter is sending it to the internet and at the converter is only using t c p ip so by working finding obvious yes because substantial evidence supported the contrary result that i don't even understand that point what happens if substantial evidence in our favor so for example while substantial evidence doesn't support a legal issue remember the issue is a question of law and in in the situation where for example the court claim construction work for example if on the internet so there's there's more than one internet protocol even in their specification there's t c p which is also an internet protocol for it and it is in isn't it well established think the key issue i would take that with the fact that there is this fair and patent is that it seems in congruity to define a term used in the claims to a very specific version the board if we look at appendix page two thirty six on page two thirty six they wrote quote at the time of the invention of the two four seven patent there is no generally accepted definition i e ordinary and customary meaning of internet protocol so and quote i'm a little bit confused there as to what i take it you agree with that proposition we would agree that internet protocol i do not recall whether small i internet i do recall this is not the only place you'll find what does that tell us it's a judge you're saying in the claim is the only place that the eyes ever lower anywhere in the patent as near as i could find it's the only place where the small internet protocol is that tell us anything to me it tells us that the intrinsic record alone is insufficient to figure out what the meaning of the claim was and so the board was correct to then start looking at extrinsic sources and to see how the terms either capitalized or not capitalized were used differently in the heart  the the board and i support that position we support that is the c p i p both the either peter capitalized correct ordinarily get seen a proper name i assume you capitalized birth both the first letter of your first name and the first letter of your last name do you not you are correct the other has to at least have been under the very construction you seek the typo here because to my knowledge i've never seen a document or support for the notion that capitalized lowercase p is the understand one being capitalized and one not being capitalized is meaningless referring to the proper name of the t c p ip protocol what about the fact that the specification itself says capitalize internet internet is capitalized on the rest of those words or lower to mean this it it seems that it's sort of beyond dispute but that this is a sloppily drafted path because whichever position i adopt requires me to be willing to accept errors in the patent and correct them so when you have a scenario like that you want to be faulted for it well i believe that there is case l to suggest that the errors go to the draft or you know the ones with the opportunity to make it clear your yes you're correct and so outrageous for that and contract law isn't there there is if my not an issue that was considered below you know there was never a suggestion with the board the should be read into the claim text or something like that that was never an argument raised regarding claim construction i've i would in the record that the prior it disclosed techniques for sending telephone transmissions using internet protocol and even patent owners an expert did some development work in testing with that and at the time he declared those tests successful in communicating a telephone conversation i believe it was between stockholm london using the capital i internet so your position really is that all the fussing about the capitalization is rel clearly evidence and that i'm i'm happy to discuss further showing the use of internet protocol version four to transmit telephones well i think we have that in your brief is there anything else that you believe can you cover i have no further topics thank no your honor but the but the under but the understanding of whether or not that in term is present in the claims for purposes of invalid independent you have to understand well what does that term mean because the what we say what we whatever we want with it yes you can but but but that doesn't change the fact that we have we have our position which says that conversion is not conversion plus encapsulation that is not conversion they say it is and so the fundamental question is what is can what is conversion now whether or not that was briefed in in terms of is that a claim construction or issue or not doesn't doesn't really answer the question because at some point the school will have to understand well what this conversion is a fairly mean because otherwise the parties are popping across each other when there's no way to tremont whether or not that particular claim