teleconference or she is listening to the arguments and will participate that way someone ask everybody to please speak clearly and loudly to make sure that she has the opportunity to understand today's arguments after arguments for the amount of in the in the deliberations and ending all assume otherwise all of the roles of presiding judge i'm just a helper today so with that let's get to the first clay case we and then counselor rayman you're going to have five minutes  been placed of course i'd like to begin today by addressing disputed claim language down from data in claim one of the five eleven patent and in particular i would like to propose a framework that i data always flows upstream from the client to a server and downstream from a server to a climb and once that principle is recognized the petitioners claim construction and the prior  which they rely for their obviousness arguments becomes all the more unreasonable i wan would be box thirty in figure one so i don't see any of your claims claiming the overall wireless communications information system shown in all of the different components illustrated figure one the claim is just reduced down to devoted to dedicated to focused on box thirty the server itself the with its server itself so you're the the trouble i'm having is that you're  asking the court to read in some of these other components that are illustrated in figure one for a claim that is for a wireless intelligent person a server box thirty we're not asking read in other elements your honor what we're asking is that it gives meaning to the term downstream downstream data which is what the whip's is claiming it's not claiming the receipt of every kind of data it's claiming a certain arrangement of components to solve a particular problem and part of that is the receipt of downstream data and so the question is what does downstream mean and what does downstream mean as it qualifies data and that's why i began this argument by trying to draw your honor's attention to that word and how a person of skill in the industry are merely i understand a dictionary definition doesn't resolve the issue but it is informative and it's never been disputed in this case that the websites acting as a server and the display device is acting as a client in a server client relationship and there's ample evidence in the record which i'll say in just a moment that when a client since data to a server that's an upstream flow and when the server since data back to the client that is the downstream flow is an objective standard it doesn't change based on the perspective of when the server the web server sends dat jump to that why i think this is so important so that the petitioner's argument depends on a problem that depends on the display device also acting as this source server and sending data downstream in other words their argument depends on well adopting i just want to i just want to make sure i'm tracking you and as as i read the claim language the claim language again is for a wireless intelligent personal network server comprising among other things and are a for seaver for receiving downstream data transmitted over first wireless communications trail now right then and there the downstream data seems to be flowing to the web server according to the claim but i heard you know the way you want to argue this case i'm hearing you say no the downstream data is is information at the server that downstream there is referring to the data that's flowing from the it's flowing into the website ok if that is correct if that is the right interpretation it means the parties who drafted this patent used the wor seaver of the web server is receiving downstream data it is but that downstream what that means what downstream is getting at is it's getting at the data it's coming from another server and going to the user that's why network presumes more than one computer when you say i believe that's correct or on where were there two computers involved in this in a show me figure one the two computers there's only one in figure one there are there could be three and that's how we have interpreted the flow of data of downstream from  network which is described in figure one that would be a computer it's acting as a server it's collecting from other clients within that network data files that you work on that we don't look at and look at every one and i don't fourteen that's a computer correct is there any other structure or any other element and figure one that looks like fourteen  it's something separate from that their argument is that the display device is actually the same thing and if you adopt this my point i opened with if you adopt that view you also have to say that the parties intended the word downstream to mean the opposite of how a person of skill in the industry understands that and i just want to give your honour's is i'm running out of time a citation for where you can find that so  this expert addressed this flow of data between client and server and his report and where where it's in the record is fifty three zero six and fifty three zero eight as well as fifty three twelve to thirteen and arguing for apple restraint as argument for sam soft there were two petitions which is why i work for both arc i'll start with downstream data and start with specifically the claim language because that's really we believe controlling here  agree that ordinarily speaking when we talk about downstream data we're talking about data that's going from a server to a client no your honor i don't believe that that was a stab strain would be going back from the client to the server and when we when you're o right about that client server context not necessarily again your honor when we look at these specific claims here that these claims are directed towards as your honor pointed out they're directed towards that device only the whips when it grows out of wanted to claim a system that included more than the whips they knew how to do that claim twenty three is a perfect example claim twenty three is the independent claim it is directed towards a communication system claim twenty three is not at issue here that is not the challenge claims rosetta clearly knew this claim twenty three claim a three node system so in that case claim twenty three if you drew a box around it would cover the whip's the display device in a telephone which is a system because it's multiple components they did not claim that in claims wanting claims fifty eight they specifically chose to claim only the device and there's probably reasons for doing so there's printers when we look at the specification and claims that the specification very clearly says that figure one is directed towards a wireless synchronization system of which the whip's is only a park so if we were to begin to re in limitations from figure one into the claims we would be converting that device claim of claim one into a system clock and that is not what rosetta chose to claim  when we look at the standard claim construction principles here first of all there is no evidence that downstream data is limited to data that only comes from a quote unquote source or whatever that is second of all as your honor judge said source server isn't even in the specification that word does not appear anywhere in the specification so it would just be  but second of all we be reading in something that isn't even in the past the word source server as my colleague was not able to point to it does not appear anywhere in the specification this reading in such a limitation is just strictly contrary to philips where this court said if we begin reading limitations from the specifications into the claims we would never know where to stop and that's a good example here because rosetta would ask in the dissent would ask that when we look at figure one only the whips and whatever is at the very top of the figure one what i believe rosetta calls the source server should be read into the claim but what about the intervening wireless network management system what about the intermediate network twenty way what about the first wireless network twenty why would we choose to read in only the element at the top the figure wanted not all those intervening elements clearly this is the board got this right the board found that figure one was not part and parcel it was not commensurate with the scope of claim one and for that reason we believe the board's construction is the correct are there any other questions about downstream data now if i may think there's another claim limitation that is at issue here that i'd like to briefly address that is a network of server now this is directed towards those whips itself the device in the pattern it's called a wireless intelligent personal server they added the word network in there so it's a wireless and told you could network server means a server that is serving a network of computers not in this case your honor and the reason why is the first of all as the org correctly found the i triple e dictionary defines a network to be at least two or more interconnected devices so all the claim requires we look at the common ordinary meaning now work itself is two devices connected together what rosetta proposes is a claim construction that specifically excludes the ability of the whips to communicate with another device in a point to point communications like the board found as contrary to the common ordinary meaning network based on a dictionary definition under this court's precedent that that finding does deserve deference it's based on a on a on it extrinsic evidence but second of all the specification specifically says that the us may communicate with the external display device as if it was acting as a hard drive and the evidence showed it was under and spew did that communications between a device and a hard drive like an external respect to claims two and fifty nine which are dependent claims those cover a synchronization between one device and whips out was expert testified  isn't synchronisation step and he testified with respect to not just his own opinion but he relied on external pieces of evidence of objective pieces of evidence in the forms of other paths that appendix fifty sixty through fifty sixty four the board specifically found his testimony was persuasive at appendix thirty six and here on appeal rosetta does not cite any evidence to the contrary so this is plainly a case where the board relied on substantial evidence in the form of the experts on rebutted opinion and under this court's precedent like knowles electronics eighty three of thirteen fifty eight court will not find the p taps decision unsupported by substantial evidence simply because the p to have choose chose one conclusion over another possible target that's precisely the case here the other thing i would say finally before turned over t raymond is with respect to resent his position that there should be a rehearsal if the panel changes the claim construction we definitely disagree with respect to  orderly find that i mean i know you argue that certainly but i don't know if the board actually provided on earth your alternative argument is that even if the claimant compass is directed to a three node or more system disclosed in guardian and they pointed there to clean seven where they said petitioners obviousness showing this is that appendix fifty six is premised on dragons basic teachings that desktop computers and wireless computers can access a windows  overcome i believe that rejection and that rejection had to do with needing needing to have a specific type of data that was sent to the way i don't think it has there's no dispute here as to what type of data is sent to the website don't believe that th and you know the word network server obviously doesn't appear in the patent either so we sort of need to look at the we look at the language we see that they dictionary supports the idea that network is communication between two or more computers it doesn't require three computers the board found in credited that meaning of now forth and i think for that reason you know the network server is understood to be here to be  or communication with at least one other computer which gives you two or more computers regardless again we have based on the claimed eight claim seven findings and the board's talking about the c device community communicating with other we talk about the websites where they added the term network server we therefore have a network server a website that's communicating with not just one computer but we know that can it can communicate it communicates with god and certainly more than one your honor briefly i want to return to your question which is where can you find on specification reference to a source or i do want to point the court that to on with references in the specification to source file and electronic files in the definition of the website is a personal network server so the work server is inherent what is what the whips is and it's a personal version of the network server it's the personal version  what if we read between the lines of the special occasion we can find the short for read as i've said that that specific language is not in the specification but the question for the court is what's the most reasonable interpretation in the other hand there actually is no support for the two notes system in there that the petitioners have put forward they've construe a possible interpretation of the claim language but the inquiry that the court needs to engage in this what is the interpretation that is that is actually supported by the specification i submit the figure and the detail of description supported i mean let me give you a hypothetical what if i have a laptop computer and one of these portable personal servers and then i have a file on my laptop and it gets sent and saved on the portable personal server and then my laptop crashes and now i need that file but it's not on my laptop and so i access a copy that stored on the portable personal server why doesn't that example read on this claim because your honor that's not a downstream data flow we're not claiming that that's what cameras about that's not with the five eleven patents about the five eleven patent is about the whims receiving downstream data and this is why i think it's so important that they don't dispute they did not dispute this idea that in general a person skill in the industry understands their flows upstream from the client to a server so what the patent is claiming is  and then i have a second laptop and i want to access that file and i access it from the portable personal server now because i have two laptops to use different laptops instead a single laptop that this example that i'm now describing does read on please so i will answer that question this way it is not claimed as just articulated because what you have in that scenario a direct upload from a computer to the web so that's an upstream data flow that's not with the whips is claiming what it's claiming is a scenario where there's an external computer sending information trying to get information  they have specifically talked about garden income or involving a server client relationship they can map it on the server client way and i prefer your honour's to samsung's brief it pages eleven fifty one they talk about  government working in a server client way it's an upstream data flow what god induced doing a commercial doing is just sending data same question your honor just asked about sending data directly