tag or a tag talk st system for three reasons st the claim language does not support require either there is simply no actual hook to require those narrowing limitations to the prosecution history claim differentiation and prior litigation support the broader construction and three the patent did not clearly disavow any of the three claimed invented concepts and claimed each invented concept to a different degree in the pa alien all but concedes the st two points instead it focuses on the specifications use of the invention or the two isn't really all but concede the st two points i mean i thought you the patent owner in over ten years ago in a litigation said yes case in which council was describing the continuous self identification and ability capability to self identify and in at at that in iraq a tory talks about that particular limitation size it is a tag talk st invention if this invention requires a continuous continuous self identification or continuous rolling then it would be attacked oct st but the inventor if you look at the  patent specification describes three inventive concepts and three inventive concepts and alien recognize in an earlier brief we cited on our opening brief forty six dollars to forty seven dollars that one of the invent of concepts is the verification and say i've read this patent and it was trying to overcome a limitation in the price of our limitation the prior art was that the prior art required the reader to talk st and starting up communication between the reader in the act with the reader talking st consume valuable time in the short amount of time you have for these two devices to talk to each other so we came up so the invention came up with the idea of the tag talking st where the tag is continuously scrolling itself identifying itself so that when it comes with an r f range of the reader the reader will immediately be able to pick that up and then identify the tag and then be able to quickly send information and data over to the and that's what this invention is about what i don't quite understand what you're talking about when you say there are multiple different inventive concepts here and the patents not that long it is not improves upon the prior art in three specific ways the st which is what's at issue in claim for and what is what is supported by the plain language you claim for is this verification and then selective transmission which which has the interrogat recognizing a particular taggants any information only to that particular tag now in fast moving system that you do that when the tag is itself identifying itself by continuously scrolling and then the readers sees that and then understands what's the nature of this tag and therefore the reader knows what kind of data if any did it all to transmit to the tag right yes and no your honor so if you look at the claim language or even say the specific reader and tag interaction is talking about something later in the in the communication cycle so there are good if we really the st two limitations the way you want us to and i understand that there's a reason to do that the reader sends an r a a module aided r f signal with data for the tag to store and the reader does  that st and then the tag would backscatter modulator that already modulator at r f signal back to the reader is that right now i guess what i'm wondering is how would that work how would you be specification and even some of the figures there are nothing in this mess of occasion that contemplates doing that right the whole idea is you get a continuous wave r f signal unmodulated coming in from the reader and then the obviously there is a consolation where it's a read it's attack talk st where the interrogators just sending a continuous wave unmodulated and the tag response but if you look at for instance thirteen a figure one of the interrogator recognizes that there is a read write tag in its range the sensitivity at the tag has been increased and and so i guessed probably a little bit further down whereas as indicated in step fourteen interrogator then checks to see if it has a message for that tag having already received the read write the read the tags identification interrogator compares and send back but the the the way in which the tag and  reader communicate is once the tag identifies itself the interrogator can receive information send it back in there's eight i think there's more  i'm trying to find an embodied event in here where before the tag starts talking to the reader the reader is already sending data to it not yet identified tag for that not yet identified tag to store that data in the tags memory i don't think i'm going to find that in the in the nine columns here right i don't think you're going to find that specific what you're asking for that specific sequence of communications but what you will find in here is a a tag and in the description of the prior art as well that there can be reader talk st or tags talk st and if the reader inventive concept is talking about the fast moving at column to around eighteen to twenty one is talking about in a fast moving system you really want to limit the or expand the time in which you're in right  it uses the the signal said but what's wrong with what your friend on the other side points out about the last limitation of the plan which explains really the entire sequence of the signals going back and forth between the reader and the tag and that it becomes quite clear expressed lease of that the reader doesn't send any data to the tag  for the tag to store in its memory until after the tag itself sends the self identifying information to the reader well i think that the claim language itself doesn't exclude the reader talk for system so there could be communications before that communication protocol starts so that's the rule that's the right protocol but there could be and there could there certainly is other transactions or other signals that are never contemplated by the invention that are not listed in the claim i think alien even recognizes that this claim claim for is covering a subsection of the overall communication protocol that's described in the  keep the flags those nodes supplying energy to any other electronic piece there is evidence in the prior in the at the district court level or is it really just holding on to whatever energy has so during the hopping holds the energy and it tolls the energy for a specific reason so that it maintains the the flags during the frequency ops so that you can restart the communication protocol without a malfunction after the frequency hop i think there is evidence to seven pound address judge jones questions about the claim language because i think that the arguments that interment has made with clean language illustrate that this is a patent that only discloses one invention repeatedly describes that invention as an invention that is attacked they state that the wording of the claim actually supports their view that this is a reader talker system because it requires quote the tag remote object to response to the reader interrogator quote upon receipt than quoting the language from the next paragraph of the claim of a module a did signal from the reader we absolutely know and this was not argued below this is incorrect this cannot be how the system works because when you read the st two limitations that's how it seems to read it is i will if you read those two limitations together the interrogator sends the r f signal and it in that signal includes data and then the remote object upon receipt of said are of signal explain why because when they say an interrogator for sending in or a signal to set a remote object said signal including data intended to be received and stored by said remote object received and stored as referring to the right operation the right operation has nothing to do with reader talks st attack tossers reader talks st intact talks st is not about writing it's about identifying the question is is there a command signal which is not stored commit signals are not stored it's whether the interrogation comes from the tag voluntarily backscattering and unmodulated signal or gets a command that asks moderators has nothing to do with what this is talking about this is talking about writing right so maybe as absurd as it sounds the claim calls for a reader talking st as well as writing st before the tag ever does anything well that can't be the case your honor because then it goes on to say that the remote object upon receipt of said our signal said or of signal with its identification information and as your honor pointed out at the end of the claim it specifies that before any data can be stored and received by the tag the only intelligible reading i can have of the nd phrase said signal including data intended to be received and stored by said remote object is is as a further modification of what it's describing is the functionality an interrogator for sending in or of signal to said remote object said signal including data intended to be received and stored by said remote object that is the functionality of the interrogator in the system so that ultimately the interrogator is intending to send information to be written completely different sequence of steps that goes on in the communication process in your honor just to point out how the support for our reading of the claim there's no support for the reading frame but we know from several sources that this must be talking about the identification proceeding the writing and that's in the last paragraph of claim for is your honor noted in the brief description of the invention a column three lines want to it states the interrogator quote recognizes the identity of the remote object from the returned back scattered signal and transmits data to the remote object only if the interrogator has data to be transmitted to that particular identified remote object figure one has steps fourteen dollars fifteen cents which are the steps of sending the data occurring after steps ten and eleven which are the tag identification column for lines twenty nine through thirty two states the interrogator then checks to see if it has a message for that tag this is what counsel referred to in his argument says the interrogator then checks to see if it has a message for that tag having already received and read the tags identification there is only one way that this patent ever describes what happens  the no written description or i don't think it's simply that there may well be a written description problem too but there's also a an issue of claim construction we think the core properly construed claims rumor because this is the the  the other side argue that we cited cases the kind of talk past each other as to when you read descriptions of the invention and specification is requiring certain things in the claims we would submit if the court reviews those cases carefully they are actually harmonious and can be reconciled i mean why isn't this is generational in the specification is just listing three or four reasons why the prior is distinguished it's not fair to limit the claims to just one of those or any one of those without the plain claim language making it explicit because respectfully your honor i don't think that's what the the patent does in the background section in the background section it describes the henoch priority system which is a priority system so they claim that there is this independent verification selective transmission but when it did that this is what the patent says about yannick it says  bearing signals to the tag and interrogation command signal the signal tells the tag to transmit the identification data stored and tags in memory to the transmitter after the interrogator recognizes identification data it sends a key signal to the tag to enable  right that's the prior art that is describing verification and selective transmission the only difference as that as the background of the section goes on to state is that this occurs in a reader pocs st system and they have taken a position where they have said well you can have there's nothing in here that says you can't have a wake up command that's completely inconsistent with the description of the invention this is that column five lines it eleven dollars to twenty one dollars where it states the signalling sequence of the invention has considerable advantages over the priority sequence which requires the interrogator st to wake up the tag before the interrogator to identify the again it's referring to the invention and this court's absolute i would i would submit to the court that the absolute software case takes these separate lines of cases and it looks to where you're describing something is the invention of the president and it states redo that consistently this is there's a public notice component to a pack house or rely on the language in co fifty eight and it talks a little bit about the scroll down and what it indicates is that when you scroll so you're constantly sending this memory you're sending that identification information that means that the reader is getting frequent identification signals so if there's a problem if there's a weak signal and if some of them fail you increase the chances that you're going to get the signal so that's a way to do it is the scrolling which it describes as the way that the invention does but it's somewhat it's not completely constant  agree that if a tag is continuously scrolling that necessarily translates to a tag that has its own power source yes and they do not dispute that they can see that features the selective transmission in verification as i mentioned that was in the prior art they describe it as being in prior art and the portion that pat that that internet has cited to as disclosing the supposedly completely independent  lines up in lines twenty three dollars it says the tag then recognizing the command one polls causes the scrolling to stop and as they've conceded scrolling requires a battery so this is not describing some independent reader talk  occasion invention it's describing it in the context of what the patent over and over and over again says is the invention which is it tech talks versus the very very briefly if i have any time in my two minutes i just want to address the one  from these capacitors from the persistent notes to the to the tag tronics and the answer to our off area well there's that it's undisputed that during the power off period there isn't any they can see that and that's the only relevant period of time for that in our view it isn't that depletion it is in our view it is but i just want to address their their arguments because even under their arguments we still should have an affirmative so they say that if the persistent node circuit delivers power after the power comes back up that's ok because it's allowing the tax to function there's no evidence in the record that suggest that ever happens the claim term requires that there has to be a tech energy describing what capacitors do it's as it's holding a charge because it's really powering the state retention circuit in effect but it was then announced it's providing power to the persistent node circuit yes so it's allowing current to flow through that circuit under certain conditions because there's a switch that isolates that capacitor to stop the charge from leaking away and i would refer the court to join appendix nineteen thousand and sixty nine because what this persistent note circuit is it's a capacitor which holds power and transistors and all the transistors do is prevent the capacitor from leaking that's what he's saying is power it's just the means by which it holds its power it doesn't deliver power to anything else in the tag and where they were and this is also in where their own expert admits that what gets powered is when the power comes back up our reserve capacitor which is a separate component that you're not playing with attack energy store that supplies power to the persistent notes are good not the other way around there's no delivery of any energy going from this persistent node circuits any other part of the tech electronics i thank you thank you very much of you know seven invention is that the data to be written into the tag is sent to and received and stored only a previously identified tag for whom such information is intended so as in other words the data is transmitted to only one tag received by only on is stored by only one tag so they are recognizing that that is one of the key inventive aspects of the invention and the have examined are also recognize that there are independent reasons  for allowance of this particular one was a continuous scrolling and the nd was this idea that there is a recognition by the interrogator of the remote for which the interrogation has been as designated data and that's at appendix nine to and it's admittedly there's not a lot in the record about that but that's because the claim construction was really focused on what is a tag energy store and really what does it mean this depletion limitation what does it mean it's an electronics don't function and so there wasn't a whole lot of discussion in the record about specifically if it gets delivered there is evidence in the record though that aliens excuse me that enermax expert said that there during the power off period it just says it has to deliver energy with that if you say a nine to fifty seven where the examiner yes