morning may please the more first i'd like to focus on the three six six patent and then discuss the one nine four trial court construed the three six six patent the critical language as coordinating the timing and manner of the transmission of a base of maneuver so that transmission can occur without interfering with other transmissions i'd like to focus the court's attention on what we've u surplusage or additional language added by the trial court to the instruction that we think is without basis and that would be first the words and manner and then second the without interfering with other  ns first as to any manner if you read the hearing transcript at the joint appendix nine seven four you will see that the court asked and then you also say and men are friends mission u replied yes because merely cordoning timing if you're using two different systems won't solve the problem you have to be sort of operating under the same set of rules and we think manner is a helpful addition is that critical i'm not sure that word and m critical to where the parties were it goes on later there's a discussion that and manner is required and it's likened to individuals driving on the street and you can't it's not enough to have a red light green light you have to whether you're on the left hand side of the right hand side i submit that is nonsense if you coordinate timing then nobody is on the street when you're on the street and it doesn't matter you can be on the left side you can be on the right side you can drive down the middle of the road if timing is formated that's all that's required and manner it's nothing it's no where in the pattern it's nowhere in the specifications it i think was added in appropriately second the second language without interfering with other transmissions if you read at the joint appendix five four six four professor men die i am the only qualified wireless communications expert offered by either side what he says and it makes sense it's very clear it is impossible to have wireless communications without some interference that's why i couldn't have my blackberry up here and have it on because it would interfere with this microphone it's why you have to turn off your cell phone when you're on an airplane wireless communications it's not just because you're on the same wavelength wireless communications necessarily interfere with one another so by adding the language without interfering it makes it the invention not only it makes it impossible there is no such thing as a wireless communication without in there and in the real world at least two kinds of been here there's the technical kind of interference that you're just driving just voices in here with each construction that we would propose coordinating the timing of the transmission of a vase of maneuver so that the transmission can occur if you stop it there are trained you've accomplished your point which is you accomplish the could still speak to you i make my vision but it would be interfered with by the external environment and you'd never hear it my understanding of what the trial judge was reaching it was we need a transmission that can be in the normal course understood and your honor it's wrong with that idea this invention if you ask as phrased your honor i don't think there's anything wrong with that idea and i think t cas accomplishes that and if i might like to turn to the discussion of t castle we were criticized or i think u b s was characterized as the discussion of tea cast in the three six six if you look at joint appendix one seven one columns five and descriptive of t j s the system itself asynchronous polling is mentioned only wants as a part of the tea cast system second there is less than one page devoted to describing for disadvantages  case now three of those disadvantages are addressed by the invention and issue the invention it issue basically combines g p s with an existing with cas and the  is designed to create a situation which the aircraft are not broadcasting the same frequency os same time right in some claims that is true for example in claim three that is true that is not the case in claim one but the accused system does not do that if we were to construe the claims the way i described their scope yes or the accused system would not as i said therefore disadvantages to gas and let me cut to something that i think directly answers your question if you look at joint appendix three nine eight seven and three nine eight eight and join appendix four one eight four you will see this is the the t cas standard these are the minimum performance standards for t cas and as you can see your honor its title ordination with other aircraft it says for the proper functioning of the air resolution advisory ordination tasks the next heading is t casque ordination interrogations it states coordination interrogations attempts to coordinate coordination replied the ordination reply judge plater if the court and by grafting on without interfering with other transmissions if the court means an absolute perfect coordination so that there is never any interference then we do that the same aircraft are not at the same time broadcasting on the same frequency and your honor i think that is accomplished by t cas that's what i was just talking about ordination it can be done in different ways there are honor i submit two things one the claim construction is not right and to the accused system does do that and what i've just pointed to in the joint appendix to the minimum performance standards uses that very terminology coordination t cast works not because it works because it does coordinate it manages to make communications that get through because it varies the time it varies to frequency and incorporate g p s into an automatic collision avoidance system and in fact if you look at the pattern itself up detail j one seven two if you look at the summary of invention there are seven purposes set out not one of those not one purpose set out in the summary of the bench and j one seven two proposes a new means of communication between aircraft it is intended to use existing means of communication in fact far from disavowing t cas the c three six six repeatedly characterizes the invention as an improved collision avoidance system and goes he even goes so far as to say one of its object is to provide an improved automatic collision avoidance system based on g p s that is backward compatible this isn't a path that is backward compatible with existing collision avoidance systems that clearly includes t cas and therefore we believe pork truck or air and imported basically a limitation in claim three clearly says synchronize transmission so as to prevent simultaneous transmissions which this is quibbling with what the district court did and what i thought was a valiant effort to try to construe the term synchronise the issue is is there any construction not forgetting for most of the construction they propose is there any construction that would apply the word in the claim to a technology the patent itself says his asynchronous and i submit there is certainly these construction they argue below determining the timing stopping there with no reference to any other actor  external signal or or or actor in the process is not anything resembling synchronous this court synchronized it's world arguments by scheduling where the judges are going to be at what particular  might call it the decision making it might improve on things your honor i would agree with that aeration group there is a difference between a ballet and a mosh pit and the cat makes that distinction and we submit here that the transmission they are accusing of being secret is the exact same t castro's mission describing the patent and the other point i would make about coordination the coordination being talked about is not coordinating the transmission it's coordinating the maneuvers on the hope that the radio signals make it through let me turn now to the one nine four pattern and i'll try to be quick about that because my focus there is also regarding the first instance the claim language because i think the briefs that had something of a disconnect on this issue the bri particularly the appellant's brief focus on the words to report the status and location that's not the element that's issue the element it issue reads a communicator operative we connect to the controller for clause is communicating to report is in the infinity of fur and as we know in ordinary english language usage if you said he wants to become king the active verb in there is want to use not becoming king he simply wants to become k and then if you add to the phrase macbeth wants to become king in response to his wife's request his wanting to become king is what's responsive to the request not becoming king he becomes king by murdering a fair number of people right after this lesson shakespeare had to use diet to i do your behavior to cater communicates in response to the switch that's what the plain language set and the brief fail to mention a communicator communicating they lose track of what the switch is actually doing and what is responding to the switch and that's what is responding to it what happens is one of three switches in the specification is tripped trigger and until that time there is no communication fats in the cage  is clear the patent claim itself says that status or location is communicated in response to this which there's two other aspects of the claim language that are significant before we even get to what the specification tells us the first aspect of the plain language is only eight weight on wheels which the other language of the patent says that the communicator gets its data on location from the receiver that it's come to wait on will switch automatic once the plane do off the ground that's correct when it goes off the ground when it lands so you don't really need someone to push the switches on that's correct the patent does talk about two automatics which is the weight on wheels in the crash which and one pilot activated switch but they're both switches that then are coupled to the communicator but that only gives the communicator status the communicator has to get the location from something else and what the plaintiffs have never done is explain how if in response to they're switching plea means changing the clan chant it changes the content of status i'll submit but it does not change the content of location and therefore the in response to can't be changed the content of the report the in response to has to go all the way back to communicating just as we bet wants to be king so you're saying it's communicating location in response to the sensor that's exactly right and not changing the content of the message which is their theory that is the emphasis you're placing on this when you're opposing counsel and discuss this issue indicate some concern on your part no i think that's a very difficult argument to make the very good lawyers and they work as hard as they can in their opening brief they carefully phrased it as synchronize and we've mentioned that i want to talk for a minute about the question of being up here on summary judgment and the question is whether there even with all of this are there any genuine issues of fact left in dispute that there aren't and there can't be and if you look at the briefs carefully what is tempted to be a manufactured issue of fact isn't there's no dispute with regard to these two critical facts what construction for either one of these two that is proper that was advocated below that could read on the undisputed technology we submit for both of these patents there is not unless there further questions i'll be happy to sit  first your honor i did not fail to address the one nine four i just didn't get to it but the but let me finish with the three six six very quickly carlin tech and turbo car care teach that you cannot import the limitation from a dependent claim into the independent claim from which it depends if you look at claim three of the three six six it goes the one step further it goes the step that the trial court to it's a synchronized transmission so as to prevent simultaneous transmissions that language so as to prevent simultaneous transmissions is not in claim one and that third element sensing the status sensing the switch and the in response to the switch again if you look at claim four of the one nine four claim for says t switch to signal the controller to initiate communications had the inventor wanted that language in claim one he would have done so again it's carlin tech is terrible care you can't import that limitation in the claim one claim one is a relationship between sensing the switch and reporting it it does not require action on the part of the switch to initiate that that's the nature of sensing it and reporting thank you