accessing the computer server remotely configuring the user defined message profile and user defined that's huge profile having outgoing message routing instructions in the plural so what let me take each of these read out claimed features and turn remotely accessing the computer server the board's final written decision found that accessing the computer server is synonymous or coextensive with remotely configuring the user defined message profile now this has three legal errors first it equates accessing with configuring second it conflates computer server with user defined message profile and third it construes remotely as merely separate not indirect or remote each mistake is reversible error the board's final written decision made a fourth mistake by reading out the poor ality of routes were cited to the user defined message profile having message and routing instructions can i ask you just going back to i don't know which number on your list of files this is  correct me if i'm confusing this with another one but i think that there's an initial argument about whether the way that we did nothing about iran or inner we we did not leave that issue with that engine did you raise the construction i mean now you are asking for a plane construction right yeah well no but but the point is that they they essentially by conflating these two terms is meeting the same thing and by the way you have to read the access in light of the whole claim access is to the computer if we want to claim twenty two it says that the  says a user being capable of remotely accessing said computer server this is claim twenty two via said user interface to remotely configure a user defined message profile so the the i don't mean just so you then you can respond i think is i think what the board concluded was the only reason a user accesses a database is to configure it down in that yeah i agree that's what the board said but it's wrong it's wrong in the way that the specification shows the invention and it's wrong from a general proposition of how computer systems work the the invention as described says that the and this was in the prosecution history that you have to have a you know it appears in order to access the computer system and then in order to remotely configure the user defined message profile which is contained in this wired your computer system then you can do this remotely but in order to qualify and to authenticate the user you have to be able to have an access step that separate and distinct from what you want to remotely configure think about this theoretically this system was a major breakthrough your honour's in one thousand nine hundred nine when this case was filed because it allowed a user of a security system anywhere in the world to receive notifications to specify who would get notifications based on what events that would occur and also to be able to remote we configure or reconfigure or modify these user profiles and the important point here is that they didn't have to go to a central system like the one that's described in shetty where you have a predefined user profile  predefined event profile and so accessing could just to give you an example accessing could be you get into the system and you look at the data and say i just got a notification this particular air conditioning unit is not work that doesn't mean you're remotely configuring anything on forensic evidence to conclude that shani that access encompasses reading and writing the ability to to both have to read and to write accessing of the three databases the language that you find and chevy that is in dispute the two back to back sentences talk about accessing the user profile and  the the event profile but then it goes on and says that you can input data to the machine to the machine database now the point here is that you have pre defined user profile and event profiles  there's no question about that it's used predefined as you is south is throughout chatty and therefore that into that entails that you can read what data is in those two databases but it doesn't mean you can write anything into those databases and it makes no watchable sense and shoddy that you'd be able to write data in there because the whole point of the shoddy system is to monitor what's going on with the equipment at that construction site so this is situation where the board improperly read chaddy under these claims and in the process impermissibly as a matter of law remove claim terms critical acclaim terms that were the whole basis the whole basis of why these claims were allowed over the prior art if you look at the if you look at the prosecution history of this case you see that these women taishan that i'm talking about were added to get over the prior arc chevy's the old stuff that's just discussed in prosecution ok just before your time runs out let me turn to i think this was on your list which is the instruction vs devices the multiple instructions issue yes sure and that's another i mean what what seems to permeate some of the arguments here is that there's an initial confusion as to what was really posited by the parties or whether it was a claim construction so here the confusion i have through the briefing is whether or not your argument is for multiple construction require and demand is that you have the capability of having two or more instruction routing routing instructions from a user to five message profile that's what's in the claims th that you have the capability to allow you to specify which he has or or users get which notification messages on which of their devices two or more devices or two or more users or two or four two or more plain language at least one or no no but what we're talking about is we're talking about met message routing instructions and so the message routing instructions in the user define message profile give t response to me i believe your honor we made it through out in terms of the instructions being poor all again you have to you know my point is going back to all were held to that and it's that capability that i've been arguing about the instructions and that they consent but isn't there a difference between whether instructions is singular and plural which i understand with the claim construction before the board and whether you're  position now that instructions have to be to multiple devices to me those are two sets well i knew you were right i think i think we're confusing the fact that we're talking when you're talking about an instruction on a single instruction you can be sending it to one of your devices but the point of the claim is that you have to have the capability of multiple routing instructions for so that depending on what each one of those instructions can do that you have to have that capability in order to have the robust why if you have a delivery for instructions to that necessarily mean that we're talking about you have to have the capability for multiple devices is not in two different things no because because we say that the instruction and route information to who you want to routed to for what event and to which device and these routing instructions define this they are remotely defined by the user  that the user can configure their system so that the that the designated devices get the designated notifications for the designated events and this is what makes this invention so important is because from anywhere in the world you morning your honor sir please the court with respect to configuration your honors there was no debate below that configuration of first writing data into the database into the message connected to both those databases and i think the board noted that information could be accessed meaning read and write in the event database in figure one which would illustrate that same kind of for you now if you want me i think the figure one figure for as well and figure figure for relates more to the remote access part and figure four clearly shows that there's a there's a database workstation for zero six and a so called third workstation for ten and both of those as described in shot in particular that  e called for in lines eleven to fourteen both of those would have the data manager one hundred on them and fubar and figure four and a description that goes along with it shows remote workstations for twenty and for twenty two remote access to the third workstation or ten so they would have access meaning read write capability to the data manager which includes the user profile database as satisfied as stored on that third workstation for ten computer system to configure access again meaning read write just for more ordinary usage and configure would be as i read these claims a essentially a subset of access you have to read and write in ord devices they said no no we're not arguing multiple devices were arguing multiple instructions and coming to what really is really is the rub on the instructions argument vivan made no argument in the in the you know into parties proceeding that to the fact that she did not disclose instructions the only argument they made about shoddy and instructions was we argued as we argue below chevy's user profile database undoubtedly discloses multiple user profiles and multiple instructions but the board didn't even go to the use direct messages to buy a mode or modes of communication so it can be multiple devices that receive messages under shadi indeed claim thirteen if of sh the says send messages to at least two different communication devices such as fax and pager and so forth so shadi actually expressways was a sending messages to at least two devices from one the six or one patent and other patents at issue carefully and pointed out that the patent uses the term access and configure access and configure uses them together access to configure uses access with configure almost every time it was first to one of the other in the specification of the six i want that and that if and in context it's clearly saying as the birth noted you have yet to get access to the database to read and write data and  they were in they really were docked in defense argument on this we didn't argued that that communication device identification code by plain meaning by ordinary me by its very nature has to be something unique in all the world something that w identify like a serial number does any device from every other device in the world that is not what that claim says the word unique doesn't appear in the claim and in fact all appears in the claim is identification code of a communication  something that identifies we submitted below and i would submit here a telephone number for example identifies a phone a phone device my cell phone number identifies my cell phone that's clearly what very specific type of communication it's the give the branded examples of some error system and sell imagery system which are two systems described in other pat communication device identifier codes are also configured in that in the message profile by the user in the specification at columns three and four and then in more detail column eleven lines forty eight to sixty talks that you talked about configuration of the message profiles as the contractor who figures the message profiled by specifying who gets what messages and by what means specifically by putting in phone numbers are going to five phones the board mistakenly thought that table seven twenty one shown in figure twelve somehow related to a communication device id covered and that really is just completely wrong for it's it's a bit laborious to do so but if one reads through the from the bottom of column thirteen through the bottom of column fourteen what it describes in his table seven twenty to the top a figure twelve is a is a database table that lists all the all possible outgoing messages and the system will go through this table one has to send outgoing messages and identify the method of communication and when it right does the way it does that is by identifying the message delivery id which is the first entry in table seven twenty that keys to the tables listen in figure thirteen which are tables about communication devices used to fine communication devices like fax delivery or pager delivery or phone delivery that's how the communication method as it is accomplished is by is through figure thirteen and and the phone numbers and so forth are going to write the communication devices there at the bottom of figure fourteen is the one and only reference to the table seven twenty one which is the key table for the board's only one reference in the entire patent to table seven twenty one and what it says there is when when the system is putting together an outgoing message gets information for instance from the fact liver table to send a message to a fax communication device and it never gets also says along with the equipment location make model and serial number found in device location table seven twenty one so let's say getting is  because it was a little disturbing to me because as i understand so you can tell me why i'm wrong this argument deals entirely with claim ninety and everything that i've just certainly you pointed to in terms what you've done on the record with regard to  motivation and mine had to do with entirely different claims talking about different claims limitations so my right it seems like the arguments that you're pointing to in terms of motivation go to playing seven and twenty eight so it's tempting imitation that is different than playing nineteen so that's what i've read i understood your brain as pointing to the motivation for instance the normal status message is simply it's simply a message that comes to periodically and then it's interpreted on the on the server side as if it's received everything must be must be ok lots of receipt of that message would indicate an exception condition and the same thing would happen in britain like a receipt of a heartbeat message indicates there's some problem and the combination of a shoddy written rewrite we argued would operate but isn't that someone that you could get that for a number of the claims the interface unit is part of the equipment that's monitored in the interface unit is the same thing as the communicator in britain and the communicator by being able to send a message is indicating that it's functioning properly when functioning properly or you wouldn't be commit waiver nor did we and we also only agree with counsel that we raised this issue in the p o p arkan at appendix thirty three ninety eight to four hundred but but i have very limited time and i wanted to try to explain again why the board what the board is done here is completely impermissible as a matter of law they have in effect you shut it up to construe the claims and do their claim construction ok your honor for purposes of analysis let's just say that let's look at this word access versus can figure out whether it's it's substantial evidence or to no review they're not the same terms they're used essentially what you're saying is even though the board found common defense dictionary definitions of access that includes configure which would normally be central event your patent has come up with a new way to describe access and configure and that you somehow quoting those terms in ways that are different from these dictionary definition no i'm not saying that your honor they the dictionary definitions go to access not computer  dictionary definitions i think go to the notion that access includes configure write well that's but that's but you have to read our access and configure in light of our specification under the p r i otherwise it's too two lines fifty eight and fifty nine it says that database is one of six and want to wait or preconfigured so therefore access as used in chatty means read only there preconfigured you're reading the data in our claims when you configure you change the profile of the message user profile when you access computer system you access it so that you can see what's going on in the computer system it doesn't mean that you are accessing it to reconfigure the system you are accessing it to see the operation of what's going on in the system moreover the board conveniently reads out the women t and therefore if you just send it to a cellphone number or to a fax number or to an email number then you don't know who is going to get the message and which device is going to receive the message you could send an e mail to your e mail address and it could come out on five or six different devices the purpose of this claim is to identify which device or devices are going to receive the message where in the specifications of an explainer and that is it seems to me to be kind of contrary the whole point of this is which is you can have a system flexible and notify people in a bunch of different locations and that they can introduce gated himself i mean the likelihood of somebody digging in to figure out what the specific invocation yeah and that without the that would not be an infringement of the quote i mean the point is that the the advantage here is that you designate the particular communication device you're sending it that's the point there's nothing in  e mail or something like that doesn't uniquely identify under your interpretation so you can't assert this against a system that just uses phone numbers or even mail addresses or something like that well that's what i mean the plane central heart of this invention the board cobbles together this argument that because figure one shows the user interface one ten outside the start of box it's separate and therefore because it's separate it's it's it's remote and there's nothing to support that conclusion the the whole shoddy document points to a centralized system and it's preconfigure and therefore this remote configuration remote access cannot be achieved