we have five cases on the calendar this morning three patent cases one from the happen office two from the district court one of which has been submitted please the court heard this case like many cases before this court turns primarily on claim construction the ph have in this case was tasked with determining the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term the principal one in use reason the construction would seem to contemplate all vehicles but what of what is it about the term track i understand that you put in some dictionary definitions so what do you want us to say that well that's a very good question your honor and i think if i might own questions from the dangerous is it need a are you right agree with that if i might start a little further back than that to answer the question the question here is whether the for purposes of affirming or reversing is whether the p t s construction was correct if it's incorrect and there has to be a rematch it's not whether ours was correct or not is whether there is was incorrect now going back to the question you actually asked the answer is this traffic data is not any data it's like saying that if you have a process that defines all contemplates detecting the movement of the vehicle yes but yet in connection with your description of the field of the invention it seems to talk about more than just well if you look if you look at the field of the invention that the court just referred to it talks about presence location speed direction of traffic volume and occupancy vehicle or traffic and then if you go to the relevant relevan technology which is just below that it says that the feel that the relevant technology is for urban planning public safety traffic control science and engineering of traffic planning and troll collection of traffic flow data all of those are if if there's only one vehicle and an hour later than others and that then tax data if you if you get both of those yeah yeah that is all the traffic on the road for a particular period of sensor that's the title of the path and the bold happened is entitled sensor for intelligence vehicle highway systems it's basically the same field of invention your own i think in this patent as an all patents what you have to do is look at the claim language and look at the art and if you have that claim language here traffic data it means something different than what's in the art and therefore yes as part of the entire universe and the short answer your question however is that we didn't know about if we had known about them then that would have been a different question but we did decision all the vehicles driving along a certain road or in a certain area that we've we believe however that there is plenty of information in the specification for instance in column ten that talks about this is and so if we don't really need extensive evidence based on what's in the specification in column ten it refers to the digitized output signal six seventy four that's in figure eight of the pat figure eight of the patent says that you get all the signals from the roadway and then you convert them back from the from analog to digital and then at the bottom of figure eight it shows that what comes out of six seventy six which is the out detection algorithm is traffic data and then if you go to call of ten of the patent it says that that output signal  digitizing it performs spectral analysis on the digitized signal and generates the desired traffic statistics for use in traffic analysis control and forecasting that is a cris of what traffic data it is what we tried to do was to flesh that out a little bit by looking at it from the point of view of a person of ordinary skill in the art he said to make it useful as it says here for drastic analysis engineering support the assertion that traffic data must be understood in construed in terms of the traffic engine or well your honor if you look for example at the abbott case that we cited in our brief and it didn't say that wireless in the claim but throughout the specification it talked about that application everything in this application that we've referred to talks about traffic engineering it doesn't use those two words side by traffic safety in control when you see a sign that says children at play because the traffic engineers decided that they put it there well i don't think that's traffic control in the sense of this plan because this is talking about a is in a smart city you would know everything that's happening on every street right way and it would be used for exactly that purpose right well if you had all the information if you had the information about the flow of all the vehicles on a particular section yeah it would be the you've been on the other side is going to argue that you know all of this is interesting but that even if we agree with you that th on grounds not adopted by the administrative body unless it is a pure question of walk and here the question of anticipation is clearly a question of fact and the question of obviousness relies on underlying issues of fact i don't think dictionary i went and looked in every single digit in every single dictionary out there defined as the flow or movement of vehicles on long a roadway how is any specifications never mentions traffic engineering itself that is something that's being in a chair put it into the specification but secondly the traffic specifically in the step initially are the vehicles on a roadway and then the data is something that's being generated to produce from a signal reflected off of that traffic which is the vehicles on the roadway and how it intentional believe this is that is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the  if it if it is one out of twenty then how is that monitoring traffic it's looking at traffic for the purposes of whether it's private control whether it's north looking collision in general it's not looking at the traffic if it's only monitoring cells they specifically have three distinct definitions of traffic data some of those definitions include a single vehicle they look for a single vehicle whether it's the type of vehicle in might need to look at the type of vehicle because you might have certain loads that are reported on a road but they look at the type of vehicle they look at the speed of the vehicle the one of the vehicle the motion of the vehicle as well as multiple vehicles as well as occupancy as well as all these other features and so when you're looking at the broadest reasonable interpretation it compass all of these things not some of these things and so when you're looking at the extrinsic evidence and you're looking at this particular reference itself it says that traffic data which it specifically mentions traffic that are specification has a flow track but they don't mention that in the claims and you have to look at this also in the context of the claims you also have to look at this in we've mentioned is that this is  term itself and one needs to find that term of what the what that it was important as well to define that term in order to proceed further in the proceedings and when you're looking at the broadest reasonable interpretation or they're looking at the specification which does not find the traffic that itself but they also have to look at the extrinsic evidence which helps to interpret that and they provide them the written the broadest reasonable perpetration based on that and the detection technology five v h s in particular specifically mentions traffic that have by three different entities or a scope traffic analysis systems and i d e one hundred and each one of them provide you with a definition and the definition includes both singular as well as plural vehicles and so when you look at the definition you have to look at the broad it's reasonable to reputation and it should and it needs to encompass all of these things that are provided from a commonsense standpoint and also well let let's all you see all you sense is a vehicle which is not moving on a heavily trafficked road it seems to me that that's that about crack which is to say the traffic is moving on the other hand on that other ways it can be one if there's no one else on the roadway it can be nothing if there is no one on the roadway that's the whole point we're trying to keep track of the whole flow of the whole movement of these new yes in the context of the claims though what we're trying to do is to find again the traffic that and the traffic that are defined in the context of the claims in the find in the specification of the specification also mentions a specific target that can be obtained again one has to look at of the circumstances and one has to look at what the traffic might be and again it can't be limited to all that has to be limited perhaps to one because there are many different applications for this particular  though is that there is a broad implication to that miss a broad interpretation of the specification and that it was the inventors intent when he's describing this sorts it consistent with the inventors description in the specification itself that the claim construction be looked at more broadly and interpret it more broadly because of that language it's very similar to the ignite usa the camel back products case which again had very similar language in what was interpreted by the court particularly mentions that it's for the goals of the u s department of transportation i b h s which is the intelligent people highway system which is very similar to what not only that the  but also very similar to what the panel has provided us with their article or the detection of what your best evidence to to support your interpretation of why a person's going would be motivated to combine with the other prior references so as far as the obviousness is concerned with bowls we would have to look to me that was the holes in view of the permit and the former reference and basically what we have in that particular case is that bowles specifically mentions that they have a transmitter and they have received portion but they don't say how they're putting that together and we have here that parade itself as well as herman both say that it's cost effective to put a single border into the system itself both of my explicitly mentioned that and in addition to that all the board did address this issues where although you c provide a particular advantage or benefit to a particular reference to primary reference that you don't have to show all maybe other advantages and disadvantages but interestingly enough the parade itself mentions that there was a  issue and that they're single what that they're using has solved this leakage issue and bowles also has that leakage issue so the problem they are certainly solving a problem that's in the bowls reference rejection that were sustained and one of them happened to have been with regards to the obviousness of combining the holes with either herman or with former and that is the put a single circuit board on or use a single circuit disagree how do you respond to your going on the other side that we can't test undocked an alternative grounds or affirming because that would be a general problem that would not because that was already argued in the lower or in the i don't believe that i have that but i do know that it would be somewhere in the appendix forty one forty two forty three area perhaps and flip there doing  is interpretation they've adopted their own interpretation and with the adoption of their own interpretation they've settled this but they've also look at the other ones and according to the right to try and see them saying that even if we  still be found obvious they didn't know they did not i'm sorry if you misinterpreted if i misspoke on that or there was a misinterpretation what i am saying is that they were briefed on that it was part of the arguments in the lower press tribunals with regards to polls and with regards to farmer and we brief that at page thirty one forty six forty seven of our own brief and with regards to the vote reference itself they are now bringing that up in i think it's an interesting exercise your honour's if you would look at playing nine and substitute b p camp definition for traffic data you would read like this a receiver portion that detects a reflected signal from the vehicles traveling on the roadway and that generates a data signal that represents any data generated or produced from a signal reflected of vehicles on a roadway from the reflected signal adopting that interpretation the second half of that claim element is the same as the first they're saying any data generated or produced from a signal is traffic data but that is already required by the first part of the claim element the first part of the claim element requires a reflected signal from the vehicles traveling on the roadways they just this a rate any meaning for traffic  questionnaire about the combination of goals for obviousness purposes the bolls referenced in our view is not about traffic data the only one they talk about in polls is they rely on the tab was the passive and both the text of bowls and the testimony from mr a land about bowls sees their expert about bowls was that the only thing that thing does is determine whether there is one vehicle traveling much faster than the general traffic on the road that's not traffic data he said in fact that if all the vehicles were going by one hundred miles an hour he said the same speed it wouldn't detect any of them and he said that and bull's itself says they're sixty five feet resolution you can't detect individual vehicles at sixty five feet because it gloms everything within the sixty five feet into one reflection that is not about traffic data it just isn't now with respect to the combination they try to combine bowls and parrot parrot and and or herman and they say that herman teaches the circuit board and so does parrot and therefore it would have been smart to put bowls of ordinary skill would have been motivated put bowls on a circuit board like herman's or parents or with herman bowls talks about this need to have their receiver and their transmitter six feet apart to deal with the leakage problem i've never seen a circuit board that six feet big deal with that permanent there's not that just doesn't work now parrot has this complicated lattice work to deal with the leakage problem it has a lattice and has a lid on the lattice i'm over when i finish your answer it has a lid on the lattice and mr lantos fired that it would be a more complex more parts and be more expensive than than what was already being done now if you look at motivation from a common sense point to do it is what would somebody out there working in the trenches do well he would look at all these things cost effectiveness and it just doesn't work parents for that reason i think you for your time this morning went to counseling