uniloc versus apple can you help me with pronouncing her name is it is your honor that's the correct pronunciation all right thank you please proceed may i please the court law group for you know a lot i want to start with claim construction the board erred by construing intercepting as artificial excluding only intended and recipient devices as opposed to precluding all intended recipient examiner interview that the network and there he is receiving messages that are sent between two end users and then in response the examiner suggested the applicant further clarify the independent claims involv mean i think one read in the context of the examiner interview i mean if they were interchangeable to discuss your honour's comment why would the examiner requires a change of a word i mean this is something you know it's not like the examiner was suggesting something to clarify in the context of one well he was stating that if you make this amendment and then you change receiving with intercepting then it would overcome the part of the record and just as a matter of saying that they mean the same that a lot some of this is a matter of fairness but this is also a matter of notice and notice to the public do you not you know kind of appreciate that the public looking at this i mean you're you were under the broadest reasonable interpretation and your interpretation is very much in the context of this and you using that in that and ignoring  you know but it's saying very clear two different alternatives i would agree that if i were just limited to the received or intercepted quote in the specification then i would have less kind of attraction to make the argument but i think it could your honor but again we believe that the prosecution history you know it again if you look just at the received or intercepted in the specification if that was the only guidance i think you would have anywhere to go but the prosecution has to be including blue book eleven to twelve you know this is something where we were st to tapping or tuning into a telephone radio message not intended for the listener and here the situation is very similar to a wiretap  specification that two lines sixty one to sixty three describes that the intelligent user clients and these are the end of the making the call have little to no knowledge of the network and that is what is meant by something that is intended or unintended from the perspective of the intelligent user network they have no knowledge of the you know any of the intermediate points or anything going on the specification talking about policing network services and then from th perspective of the caller everything of the network is not intended so similar using a wiretap analogy a criminal suspect making a call doesn't call directly to the f b i rather the f b i would intercept or tap into the call  attempts to justify under on all kind of a phantom alternative ground but as we stated in our in our briefing that isn't proper a new base of because there was no alternative ground finding by the call and it's also consistent as we've been discussing with the specification which describes this network policy enforcement entities the entity that's doing the intercepting and every time every time the patent describes this network policy enforcement us that figure four illustrates the network policy enforcement entity and when describing the network policy enforcement and again this is the entity that's doing the intercepting the pattern tells us that it receives signalling messages message so in some ways you know we talk about what interchangeable and whether intercepting and receiving are interchangeable terms i sort of look at it a little bit different differently in the sense that we have to look at how the specification is describing the function of  this network policy and for somebody and it uses both words to describe the function of the entity so it was perfectly appropriate for the board to construe it consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation to t  that receiving an intercept are interchangeable what i would say is receiving is certainly broader than intercepting i think it's an umbrella term i think intercepting is a type of receiving and i think that's what the specification is conveying and the specification tells us that that network policy energy does receiving and in terms of what intercepting means intercepting means what you do with it after you receive it and that's valid out by the rest of the the rest of the claim tells us that once you receive it you've checked the message it's checked whether the service is authorized and if it's authorized then you for the through and this goes back i think to the prosecution history on a because this word intercepting  this is wrong but that the board's finding that your cross references were insufficient problem would have been solved i take it had you cited to well that's right that's that was all i needed to know about that so let me ask you then about the marriage because the board of course not only ruled against on the procedural point but also  specification based on two signals or just one and i direct you specifically to the set up and the set of signals yes  based on on one message and i think the the place to look at this is starting at page twenty six of the appendix which is the final written decision and in the understand it is not made until after the set up act message is sent that is correct out of the right equipment like those two separate messages rather than a single message as is required under claim eighteen the the gate set up and then allows the message to go through and that's all that's required by the client now my my question though to you to the extent that that is your argument it does not seem to me that that's the argument  you made in the in the petition because the petition in the petition you seem to be relying on the set up act message as being the message that makes the ultimate determination i'm looking at pages thirty six and thirty seven of your petition controller makes the determination that the message is author of the service is authorized and forward that through and that's what we show in one b one and that's where we think the board got wrong could with respect to the issue of whether a single message has to contain the various multiple services that are referenced in claim eighteen and signed or stand at the plane eighteen refers to the intercepting requesting determining and filtering steps all being done with respect to a single message not multiple messages isn't that correct either with the right and the message that stilted infant four is the same single message that was intercepted in step one right correct all right so i take it that means that the determination of whether the user  authorized to receive at least two of the name services is done before that single message is filtered and the filtering of that is done based on the authorizations that have been determined as a determination right that's correct that the term recess receiving is very common term in a number of these telecommunications type claims intercepting is not and so they do have a different meaning we disagree with that meaning is we don't that appendix eight hundred and forty their original language at the bottom of the page is the comment was receiving and filtering messages that are sent between two end users so the intermediate concept was already already already in the applicants and this will proposed amendment what the examiner was doing here was interjecting the notion of replacing the word receiving with intercepting and when you look at what the board construed intercepting you know we're suggest a replacement of the word receiving to intercepting if then the the real meaning of it was this receiving all along i mean this is again this is not the context of something where he just say i want to aside the procedural problem that is the cross reference issue that we talked about earlier what is the what is the answer in your view to mr i don't want to repeat our brief and i think it's in there but you're based on the didn't really discuss this in much detail so basically what your break said was that the board got it right so i'm i'm interested in hearing what your responses to what mr precious has to say oranges approach approach in that he's picking a signal to one part and then you know combining it from another part so it is a thing logically inconsistent as you applying it you know i think it's also are problems with the procedural point but what's wrong with the argument that the that claim eighteen would be satisfied with respect to the caller's authorization not to call  they should have the caller's authorization on one single basis ginter stand the question i it's a shorthand way of putting it but you understand the caller versus callie authorization issue that  strike our reply the patent owner never argued that we were expanding the record with our reply and there's a reason for that and that's because the theory was this close and if we look at appendix one filtering rules and actions and the number one filtering rule is forwarding the message on an alter to the next hop in the path to the intended recipient what that means or honor is that in that scenario when the message is for an on an altered everything above meaning everything above and claim all the other limitations once those limitations are met all that needs to be shown is for that the theory that we disclose and sure i suppose the board it would have been better for us to i guess cut and paste or incorporate by reference everything that we've said above but there really is no need to do that and i think that's reflected by the fact that patton ourself never complained about  disclosure never said we had no notice