for the life of me i can't understand the claim construction issue here because i can't understand what the used product yes and in order to arrive at a proper construction it really needs to be some context what happened in general is that we had a situation like that where you couldn't tell who what the an underlying infringement is so you could really understand somewhat the problem here because i have a very difficult time for you know what the meaning of this claim construction is and how it applies to the accused product so what's the response to that the response to that i think is to look at the relevant paragraphs of the summary determination that follow the claim construction because if the case is here yes but i did that but what i found words of reference to the statement of undisputed facts where from all i could tell from looking at the chase opinion one would find the context within which this case is ultimately to be decided but of course in appendix we don't have the statement of undisputed facts i went to the at least i didn't find it and i looked and i went to the web site to see if i could pull up the statement of undisputed facts in wasn't there so at least it wasn't available so could you provide us with the statement of undisputed facts and would the statement of undisputed facts tell us what the accused product is and how it operates so yes we can provide that to the court well w it help us with judge types question because i had exactly the same question now i'm not sure that it would because i think that the statement is made of facts for purposes of this motion just by these parties on this issue following the claim construction i you is what the dispute turned on that the reason that the other side was pushing for that instruction that that the l g a adopted was that the accused products don't transmit configuration information or that they say that or that's the problem here i mean it's just that is it you know just repeating the language that the parties to been disputing without really telling us what's going on why should we send this back and say we're not going to  this case in the abstract here we need to know what's going on and you've got to tell us what's going on if you want us to rule on the claim construction well if the court can't rule on the claim instruction we certainly would prefer that it do that rather than  affirm i do think that it would be important to tell the pm to tell the court that it's a claim construction not just a summary determination that's being set aside for inadequate explanation i don't think we were i have an objection to that  know we think that there are certain errors that are discernible on the face of the of the courts or the algaes decision and if the court doesn't feel prepared to rule based on the record before it i don't think we have an objection to setting him back is there anything in the record that was before the jail that would tell us where we need to get ahold of that record of the information that we would need to know exactly how the accused product works so that there's been an entire proceeding before the commission and this is just one patent in a multi patent investigation and so there is a much larger record about the accused products the other patents are infringement get contentions in validity and so forth because when you say well it sends scheduling information and that doesn't help me because i want to know exactly what this information would be arguing that they infringe under it because the construction that was adopted includes machine executable code right and so it's not that but with the way i think the way i would explain it is that when you have a properly configured robot the robot has on it all of the code necessary to perform perform the cleaning operation when it's told what time to do that and you know what room to do it or do it in or how much of the room to clean so on so the information that is transmitted in order  to complete the robots needed to give the robot the final instructions is what time to clean and how much of the room to claim there could be other settings as well what that that's not that may not be machine executable code but it certainly is an instruction and it is it causes the processor of the robot to execute the cleaning operation now although we could certainly we would have to prove in proving infringement as  r theory is the transmission of instruction clean now is an infringement the transmission of any of an instruction clean now so it has to be in response to  construction that brought out so early i think it would help if we went true back to the wording of the planes because awful things so the independent claim right yes that's right that they were there were cleaning robots at the time the innovation in this case yes the ability to use a single guy you know a handheld device  right that the user enters that he can use their selected now if they're sponsored if there's a schedule let's suppose the default schedule in the robot is clean every twelve hours for play and that's built into the robot and what i have is let's say a fart of a like like keith for my car which when i punch that it tells the robot to go ahead and start the twelve hour cycle cleaning now that infringes according to your theory as i understand it would not you are because it's not first of all it's not a mobile phone you know that if i put it ok i put the clicker on to my mobile phone so if you send a message saying start the start this test is just a click it's just a click on the robot then again include the schedule information they'll just simply misread the claims i think that that's you can see that most clearly so you misread claim one if i could i'd like to take the court to the  for the second paragraph of the claim in response to an operator command input at the mobile phone and at least in part indicative of the schedule so that's two adjectival phrases at the mobile phone and at least in part indicative of the schedule and they all j read it so that the first part  the word comes before and the second part modifies the word that comes after instructions we think that's wrong and of the correct reading of it is that both of those adjectives modify what comes before a user command input and so because the user command has put it has put in information that tells you what schedule to follow then the what makes the claim work what makes the robot clean according to that schedule because the claims then say three times thus gadgil that's the bus schedule not just any schedule but the schedule and put what makes the robot clean according to that schedule has to be the transmission of information that tells it to clean according to that schedule the other detail jay's construction of my life friends of the other side advancing a construction that's totally optional what's required is that you then is that you send what we call configuration information information that configures provide if it reprograms the robot that updates the software puts no software on it which is not necessary i think that's most clearly showed it not to be necessary i figure seven which has the block drawing which says configuration information not necessary if the robot is already configured what makes the robot clean according to the schedule is the transmission schedule information i'm unclear what exactly the claim construction that was adopted by the l j means with respect to the reference not to software program which i understand but term what's the minimum required to be did you know so and i i certainly understand why the court would think that more factual context would be helpful and in assessing that information but because i think i think you tip it when i read it at least just to give you an idea of what where i'm coming from here when i read that i'm i'm not seeing the same thing as downloading an application or downloading a program i'm seeing something much more minimal and still what what do you think is computer how to load a spreadsheet and how to provide how to perform functions that are based on the data put into this bridge what would not be a machine executable code is that users entering data into the individual cells of the configured spreadsheet but we think that would be cian executable code to be equivalent to at the minimum a signal from the phone to the processor that would be that the processor could understand and act upon it no i don't think so and and what's the difference between that and what your concept of machine executable code is so i because that's where i'm having trouble and i think that that's exactly the right place to focus  because all we want in our construction is to allow an instruction that is with some scheduling information in it that goes to the processor and can be understood by the processor and can cause the processor to carry the linear operation that's what we want this claim to be read  machine executable code limitation read by the way all j not based on anything at all of the intrinsic record not even based on the dictionary that the ale that was cited in the briefing below so that to be clear the dictionary itself does not use this a scheduling component either in the message or that is interpreted it where the message is interpreted by the robot as scheduling specifically by the processor in the robot well ok that's that's right and i think that you know ball code is more complex than simply an instruction that's understandable by the processor how i think because if the processor is already configured and is waiting only for a dat at that says what time to start as opposed to a series of instructions about that tell it what to do when it's when it's told to begin cleaning that's the difference that we see that if that if all that is transmitted is for example day date and time to use the phrase from the specification that would be scheduling information we think that that is covered by the claims it's exactly the kind of thing that the user would be in putting into the mobile phone in order to have the robot in the at some time in the future you say it wouldn't be a machine i just beautiful code even if it was transmitted in a language that was specifically directed to the processors understanding implementation yes i think that that's right that that's our understanding of why why under the construction the you know we did not oppose the summer determination of not infringement whereas if you took that artificial limitation out of the claim construction and you really just went back to the language of the claim and said instructions that could be understood by the processor that caused the processor to carry out this operation we would not of conceited not infringe that we would have a good infringement case and that we would be proving the causation through the process we look at what the claims actually say the only reasonable objective conclusion is that instructions in connection with a processor has its ordinary meaning in the field they claim language does not support the connection  commission i'm not prepared to address one of them all well quite the i'm not asking you to address what i'm saying is there are an issue before the commission if twelve hours i punch you then to my machine that's that's a signal and it's just in whatever language comprehensible by the by the programmer by the processor is that an instruction just a schedule it's a direction to start cleaning according to the schedule i go given you both in the take schedule and instruction to get going but i think if are cleaned in thirty specification that tells us that instructions has an in special meaning in this context well i think did think destruction begins with the claims and in the context of the claims i think that it does show that it's a transmitted over a wireless communication which i believe in context this is a technical term but it's a technical term that's not otherwise used in the specification so i think you have to look outside the specification to get guidance specification and instructions not used and not used the information including directions i think and i think yes i think that pinning an awful lot of your case on the notion that the word instructions has to be used as a term of art and that it completely changes the meaning from what i would assume you would agree that it would have if there were directions were there but if i wrong in that assumption then tell me what i think i really claim languages i think the most important part and stream claims but it's not just based on that it's based on i i believe that i don't know for certain i believe that's in there but i'd have to go back and look at the pleading it's the closest we can come to giving you a description of how the products work i believe is in the complaint that was filed by the plaintiff and they have  but i think a good place to maybe for me to start is with your question doug bryson about it would make a big difference if it's a direction should set of instructions and i think it would not make a big difference and the reason i think it wouldn't make a big difference is because we're not  least from my perspective the construction is not correct simply because of the word obstructions it's confirmed it's correct because of it that entire phrase in the context that that takes place in the in the overall patent and also because of later team which is used the the computer i see and so the key point i think is when you read this specification there's a clear distinction between configuring and scheduling and configuring is repeatedly described as the program on the computer or updating the program on the puter at scheduling it's ninety m on tuesdays something along those lines and so when you read these claims in that context in the context of the  distinction between configuring and scheduling and you see information including instructions configured to cause a processor of the robot to execute right that in this context is talking that allows you to interpret the scheduling information so when this claim says because a processor of the cli robot if you have to stretch that to turn that into a schedule the clear direct cause bolstered by the fact that in claim thirteen there's an expressed reference to scheduled information so if we were to follow i robot argument we would be looking at claim twelfth we had to streamline different phrases that mean the same thing we would have on the one hand cancelling information and on the other hand information comprising instructions configured to cause the processor of the cleaning robot to perform operations including executing when your operation in the room according to the schedule was a very different phrases that don't mean the same thing and we don't know that just from the word instructions we know it from instructions configured probably most importantly the work configured and the work and then the concept of causing a problem to the other patents that issue in the i d c proceeding involved the same issue is now not all nothing like this they're very different that i believe the only remaining issue we're no longer involved in i believe the only but i think so fundamentally i think the thing to destroy means the result in this case is the context the specification provides about what configuration information is what scheduling information is and how that contrast so you're  configured to be a reference in effect back to configuration that is as it is used in the specification so this pesky shit doesn't just use configuration i want to be clear that it uses the word configured repeatedly insistently to refer to programming the robot or programming processor cope putting code into and it uses scheduling in a very different way and i think there i want to agree to some  something i robot said there is a bit of a disconnect in this question what seems to be a bit of a disconnect between the operator command input with the schedule and then the robot operating according to that schedule if there's no requirement that transmission if there's a there's sort of an initial question that you have when you read this claim but what i've what i think is important is that pat make clear that you can do two things with the supposed that invention one is transmit configuration information one is transmit scheduling information you need to have both of them on the robot for the robot to work but you don't need to transmit either of them if it's already on the robot and i think it's a very simple common circumstance you know if your phone downloads an update for the road for the robot and you look at your phone you say continue cleaning with the updater program according to the schedule that would meet this claim and what would happen is the updated clean program would be transmitted to the robot i think it's probably fair that you if you are updating the program and simply saying implement the standard program already in there which has a schedule already cleaning everything else is just mechanics oh i mean the proximate cause of the cleaning their eyes but let's look at the claim because the claim tells us more right it tells us what has to happen it says executing the clear operation in the room according to the schedule comprises leaving a stationary charging device at which between devices got the cord into the schedule and navigating about a floor surface of the room so i don't think that your button press there is causing this i mean maybe even in the distant but for sense it's causing the navigating about the floor through what's causing the robot to navigate about the floor of the room it's the instructions on the processor that tells  two points about that so that one is about configuration information because i do i do agree and this is best seen at the bottom of the top of column twelve in the corresponding figure so that configuration information is a different category of stuff then  talking about configuration information but there are lots of things ranging from a user input to a digital display that are configure it that it referred to throughout this patent as you know configured configuration or being in figure in a configuration is just a relative arrangement on obviousness grounds your claim construction were adopted i know i don't think that's correct why is that wrong to answer the question figure out i think i have to get into a full description of the oregon individual references and i think this was was private earlier th this isn't the invention is sending the instruction to start clearly from a mobile phone to a robot the robots existed before the cleaning schedules of them and the number one on general grounds you may not end up number two just you don't have the they are before you as of the priority they should leave it to two thousand and four but just to give you that the basic answer of what i disagree with in your question is if you read that in the first couple of columns discussing the background of the invention it discusses how robots could be programmed with user input on though on the robot which is different from the type of advanced can advance to programming potentially combined with litigation which i also wanted to mention that's been stayed pending that i c c but that is in other places but district to mask to to look at for if what you're looking at is something you can get on the internet before we file the the information software program or machine executable code that limitation is not in the claims it is not in the specification you can't get it out of process or for exactly the reason that mr brown you know i think basically conceded he said that yes in a sense you can cause the processor to do all those things like i think the words we use where it can be understood by the processor that's the whole point and we're happy we'll happily take on the obligation of proof of proving as a factual matter that a causes b you know that the instruction causes the processor to execute but then the whole the