the ordinary meaning of initial is happening or being at the very beginning first just idles below argued that controlling initial transmission means controlling the first transmission from the senders origination address it does not include exercising control or a subsequent read transmission of that met at some other point in the system the board however ignored the plain meaning of the initial instead the board construed controlling digital transmission to be quote you'll notice that the board's several times stated that the amount of voice message intended substantially similar to voice message system fifty that was a mistake that they made in their order below in order below specifications i'm sorry for not knowing the answer to this that this is that's a vacation talk about systems including prior systems that we try to again then it suddenly becomes somewhat more sensible to think about the emission of transmission as being the first effort to reach that we ship the end as opposed to the second effort to reach the recipient as opposed to lay this on or hops on a trip from origin to receive at the end where the initial is picking out the earlier legs rather than the later legs well i the if the phone is busy you don't send a message anyway and that's no use invention or if it's the end user doesn't want to receive a message from me for example instead of sending it always at the end time the system resources the system by controlling the initial transmission stop that from happening so i think what you're saying is yes of you if you if you if you tried five times that would be more efficient still but the point of this system is you wouldn't try five times you would even try once because you the v m s on the sender side knows what the user wants and the what the with the recipient wants and so he doesn't it so that message out again was just generating stored in fifty gig blocks that is controlling initial transmission of that message it might be sent on to the ace if fifty eight wants it and that's fine coming out of origination address of the sender to the recipient is satisfied so long as the data is not read the reception of this argument is wrong to reasons first part of transmission does not mean prior to reception if i told no it's an excellent question your honor and i'm afraid i don't have an answer to the board on the examiner never looked into that particular issue like i can speculate maybe it could be construed to regularly repeated calls to the same person  some of the systems also a a smaller message is made for example to the processing system before that the bulk of the voice message says data send in order to avoid sending the bulk of that data it's going to be blocked but things that you just mentioned which make to then be distinguished by the addition of the word initial in one case the addition of the the whatever the phrase is from the origination address or something in the other case i mean i i  certainly found no written explanation but then there's something there's some gap between finding a written explanation and saying this was completely insignificant we know it was not completely insignificant because a rejection was changed to an allowance of the question is what can one infer from the prior art basis of the rejection suddenly change into an allowance and if maybe one can infer something maybe one can't but on the other hand giving this term zero content is a little troubling you're right your honor i'd be much happier if i could come to the scored offering some explanation of what the examiner in the applicant understood when those terms were out and but unfortunately the discussed that either the two additions would in fact overcome i don't know your honor the priority since it wasn't analyzed either before the board in this case or even in the briefing reading in all the material right but it seems to me we have a kind of a double problem here it's one thing to say we can actually give we can understand some content of the term from the claim itself one intermediate location that divides the past into two segments in the other modern figure three there's actually two intermediate locations where some processing occurs so the term initial when you say in the claim only refers to neutral in terms of warily where the segment receiving instructions for controlling the initial transmission to the recipient this problem judge toronto has just pointed to is not unfamiliar with and that we have and perhaps the  be interested in it we often see cases where there has been and in the record week overcame some prior art with no explanation as to why and how that occur was and uses are to some extent the dog that didn't bark the fact that it's not stated when it's clearly identified there's an obvious way to do it would tend to leave that we would tend to leave the public away from assuming that it was claimed and in any about processing does that apply that we three claim contraction to in the seven seventy nine and one hundred seventy four for does that point apply just to the the processing point in the seven seven nine well  again the sender celeborn is clearly identified if i doze sought to claim processing these voice messages at the location of the sender cellphone there's no apparent reason why it couldn't simply claim that and the contrary interpretation  seven seven nine for example if the claim is construed this way because the terms from an originating adoration address to the sender are used in all of the independent claims effectively excluding one of only two preferred vitamins from all seventy five claims of the patent when you consider how this these claim to be understood by the public picking up and reading these claims that you have the specification the fact that again processing at the sender's network subsystem is never claimed in fact there is no temper these figures you see a telephone that's a distinct item connected to a voice message system they're both a trade of separate items in the case of figure one or for both frankly i don't concede that the processing actually occurs at the in that system the telephone is not the same thing as the voice message system but it contends that it's only claiming figure three and then figure three the telephone fifty six and the voice message system fifty or subsystem sixty one are colocated with the which is it's often proper but in this case the limitation being urged doesn't even exist in in the figures just a cursory review of one of three of them reveals a very similar relationship between the phone and a voice message system th separate items are not co located to do a degree that they assume a common identity i just as argument essentially amounts to yeah when we refer to the voice message system because the telephones in the same place people would know we mean the telephone i t being urged by hyde is to adopt as limitations that are stated in the claims that exclude preferred and bottom lines and in the case of the seven four four patent that attempt to draw a distinction between figures one and three and the relationship between the phone and the voice message system but simply isn't telephone of the voice message system can be located quite a distance from another even across international boundaries that point is made only with respect to figure one but elsewhere the specification notes that the telephone in figures one of three provides substantially the same access to the voice message system as it doesn't figure one that the relationship between the phone and the voice message system is the same in both of these so again a competitor of the public viewing this would understand reasonably case in which the examiner rejects and you go to the board and say are the ground that we stand on is the following construction and the lord says that can't be right should that not be enough to support a rejection because you haven't provided a well supported p understandable claim construction so that either there is a broader one under which you lose or presumably you would have argued it or it's indefinite in either event  possible with the broadest reasonable interpretation to make some sense out of what this these claims are about what's wrong with their eyes or is wrong that is that we never got an opportunity to argue why it wasn't says is local systems land and wham plans are groups of the local system a land to repeat the definition a system of links together electronic office women such as computers and forms a network with in an office or a building we don't think