good morning the court should grant rico judgment as a matter of law with respect to pitney bowes anticipation and obviousness defenses as to earn a five patent players at issue in this appeal scuzzy protocol is just a network protocol it does not address the problems or offer the solutions that are provided by the money on the patents first with respect to claims four and seventy seven of the doesn't have to offer the solutions it simply has to contain each and every element of the claimed invention and certainly appears to identify the computers to each other and it invention seems to require little else it date which tells you what is an idea it's an identity why isn't that enough it's not enough because the more common order in this case is that the identity of the operation of the identity of the computer has to be  such as a serial number or a model number that car spawns to the computer that means that it has to tell you what it is not where it is and this point one on it it sounds to me as though you're challenging the claim construction when you didn't be them maybe it may be that he came up with an incorrect claim construction but you didn't challenge that it is not an excuse me your honor it is not an incorrect claim construction it was a stipulated claim construction and i embrace that claim construction it says any in addition that corresponds to the operation terminal in the context of the invention reading the claim in light of the specification reading the construction in light of the specification given your location which is the rule that the s that serves the apple laser writer reference all it describes too is location and that is because those are merely network protocols the only issue there in scouting and in the apatow cortical is how to get the said no i wouldn't give you my address because my address could change i would give you my name so that you know who i am and then if we were interacting in a computer system i could go to look up table and determine her characteristics and determine how i should interact with her how i can collaborate with her in service of the n v user which is what this invention that was all about was a rather interesting exchange which we read in the briefs it has so little to do with computers  as people are not computers we identify them differently machines identify themselves to each other in the simplest terms your honor identifying the computer by its location serves the purpose just as a general term as well of as as long as it's somehow related is that what corresponds mean i don't believe so your honor in the context of this invention you can't just take it as your honour's have taught us you can't just take the claim and read it in a vacuum you therefore you can't take the martin plant construction and read it in a vacuum you read it in light of the invention but it's not saying a unique identifier it's saying any indicia we're not arguing that it would seem to be arguing for a unique one of a kind model number identifier absolutely not your honor let me make that perfectly clear it has to be in an dish that allows the other device in this communication that is taking place to know what it is it doesn't have to be unique it can be a model number well model numbers are going to be good so it's not your on or a model  that is unique to that computer but it can have a model id and in the context of dr moti on his invention he provided for unique identifiers to be communicated such as serial numbers here also provided for classification identifiers to communicated it is it is not a question of any invasion or all and sticking to computers your honor again knowing where this is located knowing where the computer is located on a scuzzy bus is not what the invention is about the invention is a little bit about just the the the whole purpose of this invention oh or doing is just linking to devices so they cooperate right absolutely not your hon this is not about modularization alone this is not about bi directional communication i read the entire pattern which isn't a lot by the way and could get him nothing out of it other than what i just said this identifying two devices so that they can work together what and so i'm trying to figure out why the district court isn't entirely correct to say as long as there's any indicia that allows that we have  satisfied what your patent seems to require your honor it is the patent does not say that it's a what you what what it does more than what i've just said to machines identifying themselves to each other so they can work together it's it's exactly what your one hundred just said it's two machines identifying each other really so that they can work together in service of the end user so in other words if you would have an operation terminal which has now been hived off from the printer engine what the invention planes is that the operation terminal identifies itself in a way to the printer so that the printer knows what it is and knows what kind may not be but and you're entitled to look at that evidence and i embrace you're looking at that evidence and none of that evidence none of the four prior record prior art references upon which pitney bowes is relying teaches this invention it problem getting back for a moment to the specific issue that you raise is that there isn't anything in the claim construction that says identified so they can work together that's not what it says it just says identify some kind of in n you admitted that the location is identified you know i'm having a great deal of difficulty understanding why that isn't satisfactory it was nothing about needing to work together in the  construction your honor if that point were to be accepted that would be to suggest that this pattern should be read in a way that it's not enabling the patent is to be read in a way to pick account that construe i think your honor that the law as i understand  is that a patent should be read with a presumption of validity the presumption that the patent describes an invention that will work and what doctor i'm a what we could we're describing in in the invention is taking what was previously an integral milling machine dividing it into a separate operation panel and a separate printer now that they're separated they need to have a protocol by which they can communicate with one another so that they can work together and in response to your question of what the cl in the rest of the patent is totally shouldn't a agree to this claim construction know your it strikes me that you know now months later years later you don't like the point start and you agreed to it and you say the invention requires some or maybe so but that's too reasonably contemplated that someone would read that plane construction any in dishes such as a model number or a serial number corresponding to the identity operation terminal to mean the address in the context of this invention what about the laser writer reference doesn't the node id provide a unique identifier absolutely not it is strictly a location there is no evidence whatsoever and there's no disclosure in the ad believes it read a reference indicating that the node id is a unique identifier is a location ms frederickson testified it's merely a location and if you shuffle the components in the apple network you don't know which device is at any one of those locations and the whole thrust of the invention is knowing what the devices so that you know according to what you have hard wired in your printer or in iraq ration panel what the characteristics are and how you can collaborate with it to accomplish what the device is attempting to accomplish and i submit your honour's that in proposing that this plant construction can be a stretch to be on the reason that it can  thank you it's morning your honor at the core the mahdi army claims that are at issue on appeal are directed to the transmission of different types of data between devices and this was not new or novel in july hundred ninety and both the jury and the district court probably found anticipation of these claims of the twenty three original claims most were admitted on the stand by requests on expert to be invalid and of the five claims that are there is sufficient if not overwhelming evidence to support the jury's verdict rico has presented no arguments that the claims construction was incorrect and so the sole issue for this court is the sufficiency of the evidence in this case it was a trial lasting almost four weeks the experts on invalidity testified for i believe over fifteen hours alone and the district court in the detail twenty page decision down into this a patient of these claims which means the appellate review here is narrow and i heard mr freeman's argument this morning to be directed to the jury found it was i'm sorry the jury found anticipation of the court affirmed that on a post from motion most of mr friedman's argument here today was just disputing the evidence which this court has said is improper for the purposes of overturning a verdict this court has repeatedly stated that deference must be given to the jury's choices in weighing the evidence and deciding between opposing situation and in trying factually in princes in this case in favor of pitney bowes i'd like to turn first to the identity of the operation terminal since that seems to be the focus of the court's attention is any indication that corresponds to the computer operation terminal rico did not only not appeal that but it was a construction that they agreed to at the district court level if they wanted a different construction they could argued then but now it's not the time to seek a new construction but if the sky's the ib and the laser writer use a scuzzy id and a note id to identify the different devices on the network if you can look at appendix five six this morning and that is this got the i b s seven always identifies the host so there is an additional layer in connection with the scuzzy records this was presented to the jury and the jury found in favor of pitney bowes in connection with that also note that dr moti omma at trial testified that the purpose of his invention was a software handshake that allows two devices to know if they were able to dance you heard mr friedman's argument he said that those location identifiers were not sufficient to allow the machines to work together well they are does seem to be the thrust of what the patent discusses this making sure they communicate with each other in sufficient detail that they can accomplish their purpose and one way to do that is to make sure that you have the address by which you can communicate with that device and it precisely falls within the d you know model number is that sent in connection with the scuzzy reference no it's not an honor but the g i would point out as an example and following that it sa so in addition to providing the scuzzy idea it says every time you see the skies the id seven you know that that is the host computer that's controlling the network so it's an additional layer of identification that corresponds to it mr friedman's argument is basically arguing against the sufficiency or disputing the evidence that was before the jury and in this court needs to give deference to it in connection with these claims if the court doesn't have any more questions on that  about that because you've got a certain claim construction which really doesn't make much sense in that respect well and it underscores that at the district court level the dispute between the parties was not whether there was processing in a controlled process or in connection with these claims that's not what the focus of the dispute was my think that was why the processor won eleven should be identified it's in figure two and not figure want in the money on a pattern itself and the structure should be the the processor want to let them figure t process and the system control process in connection with ms frederick since testimony in connection with this case she went through that for the jury identified the processor went to eleven and said this is the process for the controls behavior the device she then went into the final seven and testified in detail regarding the teachings of that pattern including at one it wants seven six six through seven six seven identifying the item eighty in figure four as the control processor in the five  process so there is it's performing two functions very simply transferring data and processing that in controlling itself it would not it not a very difficult item to understand and comprehend and then during factored extensive testimony  properly as processor one eleven which is contains in fact in processor one eleven the system control passes it acts and flutes the communication process but that's structured properly identified as processor one a lab and which includes a system control to again the jury heard evidence on this and found in favor of pitney bowes rico in connection with its appeal to simply articles expert essentially concede that device would have the processing capability yes that pratim stand on multiple occasions he also admitted that the data in the five zero seven patent is processed and controlled as well so in this case we had an unusual situation in which the experts in large part agreed in connection with what the prior teachings are ricos a position on appeals simply that it disagrees with that verdict and that evidence i would point out that in connection with that the ms frederickson as well as concessions by dr adams concessions which have been basically ignored for the purposes of this appeal if i could turn briefly then your honor to the model brief them with respect to what the dispute was but again that was a situation in which the jury weighed the evidence and found in favor can impose on a claims construction that has not been appealed i don't so no before turning to the claim thirty one that the schumer cotto and motorola cases which are cited heavily in rico's group brief are in opposite here in connection with the total case it was a reference that went into evidence and there was absolutely no testimony regarding it whatsoever that is not the case here we have cited to literally dozens of pages with respect to these claims limitations the schumer case was a summary judgment case in which the expert out the david was found to be confusing and not listing in the operative steps and the motorola case was a case in which was a means plus function for means for synchronization but it was admitted that the prior art did not contain one of the functions as construed by the car properly said that it was expert testimony unsupported by documentarian evidence and for that reason it sounded from the evidence lacking that is not the case here and we have clearly cited the evidence to support that again like that many of the other claim elements claim thirty one instant tired was admitted by its expert on the stand dr adams testified that the laser right iraq friends teaches every single one of those elements of claim thirty one in addition we presented the scuzzy reference which required minute the v p or vital product that it meets the model identification requirement a claim thirty one and that it can transfer its model identification from the printer to the which was substantial they weighed it and they found in favor of pitney bowes the record is replete with evidence to uphold the verdict which this court is required to do unless the record under third circuit law is critically deficient of that minimum quantity of evidence needed to uphold the verdict and that is not the case here binney birds had to defend against literally scores of claims these patents were prosecutor period of ten years many of them only had a single word difference between claim for and claim seventy seven for example which the preamble had a printer versus a business office device rico clearly felt or hoped that the sheer volume of claims with lengthy limitations would overwhelm the jury that did not work this jury asked for request that the district court's judgment finding invalidity based on the jury verdict the affirmed thank you thank you you i just want to touch briefly on the claims we're talking about for most of the time that i was up originally claim sixty nine and claim one of forty one is conlon said that the record shows that the id number seven corresponds to the address and it does correspond to the address it doesn't tell you anything about what is at that address and there's no second level of identification if i may runners because i did not get a chance to do so in light of your questions i would just like to address briefly claims four and seventy seven of the one twenty pat judge back with respect to the system control process if you look at footnote to on page five of the blue brief we pointed act that as believes that it is the processor want to leaven that is the structure that's not the case at all that's not what they said in their brief but want portly that's not what judge brown said the supporting structure is the system control process one zero two and m frederickson violated this court's teachings insurer and co ito she never describe how the supporting structure claims foran seventy seven of the system control process is present and why didn't she knew it because she knew well zero seven patent and with respect to the record act exchange in scuzzy all that is achieved is the first step of the sequence that is required by claims for and seventy seven and that is the transmission of the serial number from the printer to the operation panel that's it she mouthed the words processing but there is no processing outside the communication process there is nothing that matches the system control pro s there was no processing of the information received from a separate operation panel for the purpose of controlling the device in the echoplex protocol well that happened final thoughts horse mistreated yes i do your honor  comment with respect to claim thirty one of the six seven eight patent ms conlon said to you that there were many many devices that completed this task inventing ninety well they presented three examples of prior art and i invite  read the references to the testimony that are in their briefs and mentor or perhaps they repeatedly say dr adams conceded this dr adams conceded that he did note such thing as just one final point  your honour's can look at the scuzzy to reference it's right there at appendix fifty nine ninety not only does it not disclose it it expressively disclaims telling you where the data should be stored respectfully your honour's rico is entitle to judgment as a matter of law with respect to both anticipation and obviousness thank you mr friedman the next case is gonzales vs the department of transportation