raw cast technique which is broadcast channel overlays a point to point communication networks now a participant s participate in that broadcast channel overlays the underlying network and that's what we proposed in our instruction very simply we propose an after action program which is very broad it can be a process a computer a thread if you know that nature that interacts with the broadcast channel the overlays and the underlying network that has a construction that was proposed the the petitioner in this case said ordinary maine did not give any proposal and the  application programmer that interacts with a logical broadcast channel which overlays an underlying network that's an awful lot us rupture you're trying to suck into a client a logical broadcast channel which overlays an let me just jump to the next term and what i want to talk about and it really comes down to the terms game environment and information delivery systems and this is these are two terms it also would not give a structure to those of the preamble time on the bench that never seen a claim that doesn't say comprising and some of the others do quite well in this patent i how many how many claims that you seen that don't have a transition work comprising consisting of or consisting essential that's almost sophisticated company with a huge in house legal department and they've drafted a claim in a way which makes it intentionally confusing as to whether a post certain portion of that claim is a part of the preamble  elements our case law says consistently and unequivocally their preamble in general is not a limitation and so now you have something that looks like a preamble to me a computer network for providing a gaming environment if the work compris i'm not sent you never going to win on that with me you've already learned where i stand on who has the obligation of making the claim clear so if you chose not to put the word comprising me and i'm going to construe the broadest possible preamble and given none of those limitations at this point give life and structure to the quite a bit this is even if i here's here's your problem so suppose that i was going to say a game environment is in fact the limitation you know what i would then conclude i would then conclude that this computer network and all of the participants are limited to use in a gaming environment i eat game but i wouldn't necessarily conclude that that requires a broadcast logical broadcast channel overlying and underline network that's particular i structure gaming environment just seems to me to be a limit as to how this can be looser and what environment can you well even if it's a limitation i just don't see how it gets you as far so i think the if you read the the term game environment in to the specification of the patent then you would get where we want to get to which is the overlay network and a reservist one time for ways it right there claims that do not require an application program do not require an underlying network and then when they're faced with the prior art they try to narrow those claims and again to try to read those limitations the public and the world has a right to know what the scope of the claims are in the patent owner has no one to blame but themselves or at least the person they have bought them from for the way that they're written the board properly rejected and understands to read these two limitations into the claims through the constructions of participant information delivery service and game environment that can or knew how to claim these limitations and when they wanted to because they tried to add them in through their motions to amend here there's no definitional language in the specification disclaimer there's no description of the quote unquote invention there's no consistent use of these claim terms in a manner that would require or allow any of these limitations to be read into the claims the sixty four patent even ha neither of these two concepts is mentioned in there instead the board properly it applied a plan an ordinary meaning a participant a participant in this network and also found the terms information delivery service and game environment are not limit on that point that was was just part of there is two reasons why the board correctly found that those two terms are not limiting first that these are for use limitations and just like the situation here although it is odd as more pointed out there the other issue that came up earlier during pet owners argument was when not these are parts of the preamble information delivery service the game environment in their patent owner responses in the proceedings below both in the for the nine six six patent as well as  patent pet owner admitted that these are part of the preambles at appendix nine zero nine three for the nine six expectant and three one six six one for for the three for poor pat the second basis that  the board applied or are already used to determine that these two terms are not limiting here is that the claims are otherwise structurally complete their the therefore the preambles as an owner has admitted these limitations are part of or not limitation and the new claims and i'll step through those three issues in order this is yet another example of the board setting too high a standard for public accessibility for the lynn reference just as this  your offered a decoration from effectively a librarian who was the systems administrator at the u c s d computer science technical reports library and he testified as to at the search functionality was was operating what were the border areas in making that finding mr little the systems administrator testified that the search functionality was there in one thousand nine and  used it before and was highly likely that it would have worked for the lynn reference although he hadn't tested it for that one the evidence that was put in on cross examination of him merely said that the u c s d c s e server is unavailable at this time that was in two feature i think that i can you can pull the particular portion of the appendix at seven zero three four on that on that point i believe he said he did use of or not electronic search functionality but this court has looked to as what type of indexing was done here mr little testified that an index number was applied and he testified that the same types of documents rock group together those are the two indexing factors that this court looked to in an re hall he also testified that because this is a computer science library everything isn't indexed by subject matter because the library as a whole is one particular subject matter and as this court pointed out in blue clips so indexing by subject offers a meaningful assurance that it were nearly skilled artist and exercising reasonable diligence will be able to locate a particular reference among many volumes store in the library and that's that's  same same way a person of ordinary skill in the art would have gone to a particular area the libraries of the computer science area there might be hundreds of volumes there which it is quite as if you leave held the spine and expect that they would then be able to go through and look through the could be identified as being present and could have been located by a skilled artist and among the seven hundred and some other references that were otherwise there and indexed by offering it as well as new year your honor yes i do   which was unlimited by subject matter at all as long as it was indexed it was found to be publicly accessible if your were steps beyond what was required in re hall where you have it not only participant must know the identities of its neighbors in order to send messages to them the more compounded that error by then excluding dr carter's rebuttal testimony on that very same point particularly paragraphs one ninety three to two zero two of  showing wouldn't meet the claim limitations requiring some higher level showing that it wasn't borne out by the courts construction which was proper merely requiring something that serves to indicate the the issue here between the parties whether or not the  and yet the petition despite putting pointing to show bridges rendering obvious lots of limitations never pointed to it rendering obvious this limitation the board said you've given testimony by by an expert that wasn't response of pet owners construction that was properly rejected by the board paragraphs one ninety three to two zero two however did not rely on obvious didn't address obvious they were directed directly towards this issue so to end it in the board stated explanation for information from for joining the network as opposed to looking to whether or not the broadcast channel was actually used to join a network and for that reason we do ask that you begin remand for the board to look to the actual crime english their entry for the court recently has some cases last couple months about how it should be very flexible about destroying papers or conferences the go pro case in the jazz farmer case but they found that was not distributed it was just loaded on to the website and that if you put a reply instead of an appropriate the court has discretion to either accept or not they can look at the information that's in this reply and reject it because the bulk of the reply or the meat of it is waived they may argue that the more get to claim structure wrong but they never proposed claim instruction below and i think that's very telling the criticize the construction was given if you don't propose destruction its way that an argument they also add in appeal additional grounds for the basis for remanding back that was not rate was not part of the original grounds and look at the original petition they had l