my mind because people just using words and uncertain to certain extent talking past each other do you were greeted that the bill but what's confusing to me is that the board used recognizable beginning or end and you seemed to say that's ok but then you're in tripping recognizable to be something other than hockey and it's just a little confusing to me in terms of what exactly the board meant and whether they were incorrect we did have a disagreement over claims scope is a claim construction issue the board used the word recognizable but there was really a dispute i think it was clear even from the part that they quoted on page thirteen of the appendix we were fine with the board's original construction but they said there was some ambiguity an end the problem was the other side wanted to have protocols level details of exactly how it begins and ends and we specifically said we did not agree to that and what about the board statement in its construction that it was not requiring a particular particular  if you read the next twenty two appendix three point three and appendix twenty six you'll see that that's what they were saying was missing that level of detail of precisely how it begins and ends there wasn't a dispute that there were communications at the time request for service and we have a response and we have parallel sessions because it's been redirected to another server so we know there's been communications over time but we are cording to the board said we didn't show it was precisely how that began and ended the details when none of that matters to the claims because the claims are about horizontal scaling of cells and that that's what was confusing to me beyond it just being about scaling it seemed like the problem of the board with seeking to address which i think is a f problem which is how do you distinguish between sessions and it wasn't entirely clear to me and maybe your friend can help us out on this how it's construction whether it's recognizable then defined as how addresses well i would agree that to the extent we have certain claims that require simultaneous or parallel sessions you need to be able to say that there are multiple sessions and you need to know for certain claims whether a session has been transferred to another server but you don't need the level of moment you need to know when it began and when it ended right because otherwise how do you know that there's a beginning and an end well you know that there was a communication some communication over time for some patents and some claims you may need that information for these claims it's simply about the fact the multiple sessions and the transfer of sessions example this morning if somebody walks into the courtroom right now they'll know that we're in an argument session they won't necessarily need to know how it was gavel to order and how you called me up every communication if it involves a request for service and a response from the server to the client that is going to be a communication over some period of time our expert views that dr rubin used that i think in his no no i would i wouldn't say that because there was a dispute over there were with attempt to impose the word a defined beginning and end and we weren't quite sure what that meant what that level of detail of defined was there was quite a that that shows a transfer well let's take this take the transfer obsessions take a look at the patent at column eight for example that's where that's discussed it's actually not even entirely clear in the patent when you're redirecting a session in the pa all recognizable begetting recognizable and when you agreed to that what did you think recognizable meant well recognised you didn't have to build a fact of at the end of the day you can determine that there was a communication over a period of time we know that because there was a request and a response so we know there was a communication over time and we know that it was over communication over a period of time what we did i will actually i can argue i just plain view why we know it was actually using t c p but that and our position is that's just not necessary for purposes of these claims well are you able to recognise a beginning or an end and feinberg yes because we know that the communications or the recession begins when there's a request for service and then that's really a red herring here what matters here is that there's a computer is a communication there is a session between a particular client any particular server it's over a period of time information is being transferred and it's being routed to a different server i like to add a couple of things that he's evil has made the argument that you really do this need to know you know one end point needs to know what's beginning and what's ending but if you look at the prosecution history they eliminated the requirement of a defined protocol they took it appendix seven sixty five sixty six so they eliminated the requirement for defined protocol of all the claims that remain only one requires any sort of a particular way of beginning or end that's a claim no i and that's not even at issue in this petition so when they wanted to include a particular way of beginning or ending a session they did so and they didn't require in the claims their issue here we think that's enough you should really reverse the construction every man for the board to revaluate recognise a beginning and an end in feinberg and i want to focus on that question because in any type of communication we live in a finite universe is always going to be a beginning in it but there's got to be some physical beginning in it but that's not the same session to mean and what what that word refers to is not just the communication in general there firstly specific type of communication and so what they want to see is in feinberg is it using that particular type of communication is he using session say that we're using some sort of proprietary next so if you agree that it has to the board required that the construction of recognizable is you have to articulate how it's done the board did not require that a prior ar think that the difficulty i'm having answering the question is that i don't know that i can define all the hypothetical ways that are part of reference could meet this particular definition do you have any hypothetical ways that would not involve  conversation they greet on the parameters of the conversation and then they know that there's a beginning point ok we have opened up a connection we're now going to have this transfer of information when one side wants to end it there's various ways you could do that one way would be to have agree  is take a message divided up into little packets address each one to be and send them off once those packets are sent a doesn't know of any of them arrive at the destination doesn't know what order they arrive and doesn't know if the starts receiving them from the very first packet or the tenth packet with one hundred packets so there's not a clear beginning where both sides know this is this is where the conversation began and on the flip side when  starts receiving these packets it knows it's receiving more information but it doesn't know if it's going to continue receiving that information for five minutes or an hour thirty seconds so you're giving an example of something that your view doesn't have a recognizable beginning and end just to make sure i'm that the mere fact that the client sent a communication to the main server does not mean that that is when the session began the word session here is referring to the actual substantive conversation between the devices but think what it says here is the main server determines if it can accept a new session based on its current available process or they end with so is that the level of detail that's required  i'm looking for what level of detail in terms of how with recognizable appears in the path so with that way what it is i'm not sure that i could say in all cases what level of detail is required and part of the n connections to a corporate network and when you're using a v p n there's this negotiation period where you know if an employee is at home or in a hotel room they click the connect the pan button and his device or her device connects to the corporate servers they agree on what this v p n tunnels going to look like then it's open and now when that user's on his computer it looks as if he's physically connected to those corporate computers and so that the session in that case mimics that what that physical connection is like and that's really what the pattern is directed towards this is managing those types of connections and being able to address what happens when you have not just one big connection but hundreds or thousands of tens of thousands and so you pointed us to mind twenty three to clarify i mean you know to a certain extent maybe we're talking about enablement rather than prior art and obviousness because you're asking you're embracing the board's definition and under that definition you would need to have enabled that under intrinsic evidence that was hard for me is that the board really didn't refer to anything in the patent that it was relying on for its definition of well recognisable reception  everyone call it so i'm asking i'm looking for you to point us to something now you gave us that the main server determines if it can accept a new session based on its currently available processor and with anything more you agree to that construction i think the best way to explain it was when we tried discussing at the hearing itself which is that the purpose of the session is so that you can determine when you have data coming in is that a part of this conversation that i'm having or is it something else over here and that's that's what i want sort of agreed on it at the hearing so that they can get back to the t c p versus u d p example if the device is receiving u d p packets it doesn't necessarily know what  to communication over the internet and that's because in feinberg the only theory they had was that we can find something that looks like a client something looks like a main server someone looks like an agent and we know that there's got to be some type of transfer of information between those entities and so therefore if the word session just refers to communication we're fine we mean we made it ok one way and we understand the promise but in particular is reply brief so they just scribed at least one version of what their position was and i guess i want to know if you agree or disagree they say of course the session begins and ends at some point that's axiomatic but that is not the same as requiring disclosure of the details of an initiation and determination process and then they go on to say you're really arguing that the reference must disclose protocol level details details regarding how communication is started and stopped do you agree with that was that just the differentiation between the two positions taken i don't agree with that but so you weren't requiring disclosure of the details of an initiation and terminations process that was that your view about what recognizable meant i don't believe there's any requirement that fine virtue have to copy and paste that feinberg was actually using this particular type of communication referred to as a session and the way to do it i don't and how do you do that ok that's what i'm asking so you're saying i just want some words to define recognizable so you're saying that required can you just started it if there were other indications and feinberg that that the system in feinberg knows all the information that you need to know to be using sessions that would have what is that knows all the information you need to know i'm home right if there was enough disclosures that for example that the primary server and find for can distinguish between a beginning and end of the conversation and i can give you an example of that my friend there could be some times where you need to get more payment information or request additional access to the file something like that maybe need more code so what's the disclosure in the intrinsic evidence that's required by my guess i'm having a little hard a difficult time understanding but you're saying that you're not limited to a particular protocol so i'm looking for a description of the details of the disclosure broader than just the edge and particular protocol the other side i gave you for first generally two sessions not not specifically to a cell or a piece so there is could be other mechanisms for achieving the functionality we need to be able to maintain those tunnels between which we are and so what are the other mechanisms there could be others but said that it did not require particular protocols for use protocols that are is what i understood you to say and i had asked you for an example and the example you gave was actually for something the didn't sections do can you between communication generally and saf and particularly and he said stephens is a term that is known in the field and that that he said that sessions is the conversation between and that generally would be with some known protocol and he listed several why isn't that enough for the board to say that sessions has a defined time and a defined meaning and you don't sell us anything in feinberg other than general depending on the claims you might need to know that level of detail exactly how the incentives my point is that for purposes of these claims you do need to distinguish between parallel sessions so that you have multiple sessions and you do need to know that session has been transferred from one server to another but this is all about the horizontal stealing this sort of thing about exactly when it ends this sort of radical concept is nowhere to be found in these claims because the board was searching for i think it was they were looking for you can see that that you have to be able to distinguish i mean if you go through this whole patent it says over and over and over that the main server is you know determining whether or not it's gotten to the thing request whether it's got to send it to someone somebody has to be able to distinguish cell when you say i agree it has to be able to distinguish what when you how do you define well it's a communication between certain endpoints over time if you get a request from a client and the service says i'm too busy i need to  sixty three of columns on it says the main server maintains a list of connections racket sessions it's just equating connections with sessions i agree communications is a broader concept but the connection sessions is simply just means that you have to be able to distinguish between sessions the system itself has to be able to do that where did you argue to find teachers i was going to give you that citation as i never got a chance to answer your question before and i wasn't trying to  back yet in the sense that they said it was defined beginning and end but you see the frustration that well even a in front of even today but also in front of the board there was disagreement at the very portion in which the board was discussing with they had a discussion saying well if all they mean is that there's communication over time that's good enough we need to have the endpoint you know that they're having a beginning and he's been in more than what our our council agreed to this to cancel and so we never had a meeting of the minds and what recognizable are defined and we're still having this dispute today it's a question of i think you just gotta go back to what is the path and need what patton driving at one of the sessions here trying to do and if you can distinguish between two horizontal sessions in one session being transferred to another you've got a session whether it's timed out whether the session ends by a time out of the session ends by a goodbye message or whether it begins with the transfer of a packet or it begins with a whole message that matters here there are there is some teaching in the patent about different possible protocols but again they're not binding themselves to any any particular protocol and i think that's all i have