claim fifteen the terms of very similar now the interpretation that boyd gave is that that just once one  more paths and his answer was i mean the word is plural so the presumption is that it would be more than one half he went on to say there may be some examples you can come up with that is kind of i don't think i've had any difficulty or other people would either in understanding that that whatever transmission paths there are even if that were only one um well but it requires i mean the whole idea of the patents is to from start to finish is the term and it is about a new technique for the terminating how paths should be chosen and select that but then that that's a different point for the word itself because it has an s on it and dates that there be more than one of those things right there is a second reason why  have well various limitations in the claim i would limit it differently so maybe you would read a portion of it and he would say well maybe it covers one path but as you continue reading and you see the word word ask at the end  and that means there has to be one and also the surrounding plain language talks about how these paths would be selected for instance it says i'm looking it up he's one of mine of the appendix sense that the transmission path of a second though to the gateway can be directly from the second no to the gateway or in the rectory to the gateway through more one or more or the second nodes of the first network so even when it's scribing the network it refers not to one the second nodes of the client it's the first node be the server no but it doesn't just refer to a network that the surrounding claim language when it describes the network it doesn't just refer to a network that allows only one client node or only one second it's throughout the language of the claim it's also referring to other second nodes as it s at the end so the claim itself limits the network to not having just one second no one client no it also indicates explicitly in the claim language that there can be there are more the claim requires more than one client no more than and in fact second no it appears second knows with an s at the end appears multiple times now there was no although inventors may provide a special definition of a clean term they must do so with reasonable clarity deliberatenes precision this is the in ray paulson case that i cited in my brief now there's nowhere in the three fourteen patent where the inventor provided a special definition of the word path with an s at the end i mean that requires it uses the plural form of second nodes it requires more than one and then it says changing the transmission paths of the at least one second no to optimize the transmission paths over and over and over again it's referring to patch in its plural for claim fifteen also recite said visual control it changes the transmission paths from second nodes to optimize the transmission out of their second nodes meaning there's more than one client node transmission paths one and s at the end means there's more than one transmission argument that the board's claim construction is supported by the claim by the specifications also with merit and it's not supported by any expert testimony in the various portions of figure two that the petitioner reference  invention so there the inventor is explaining that the various portions of the you to illustrate different scenarios that are reference to explain how the plane connection up the nation processes of the three fourteen pattern work indeed if you look at the portions of video two that are at two after each prime and through each double prime there are many paths from the coin so the various servers that are in the ne petition to not make any argument with respect to apportion a figure two figure to be in particular in any paper that file during the in a party's review before the court and this court ordinarily the kleins the consider new arguments that were not   the boards of view that the claim language includes all of the transmission is also inconsistent with our wireless networks work with wireless networks you have knows th continually entering and leaving the network so at anything one particular time the map of transmission will not contain all the transmission that are available on a network because it takes a finite amount of time to do anything so at the time that the network realizes that there is an additional path through it because an additional node and to the wireless network to the time that it's recorded in the map of transmission i'm doing that entering and leaving the network it's very dynamic so at any one particular time the map of transmission that's resided in the claim will not contain every single transmission in the in the wireless said is it your views patents clearly does not require the map to include to cover all of the transmission in the network um or must it and there must be more than one such path ok our view is because for all the reasons i just stated in particular because path as an s at the end and throughout the requires multiple of plurality of transmission that it stored in the map i was also mentioning with respect to the board portion that was decision that mentioned that it had to contain all of them cover all of the transmission paths you know the passage that i just referred to you which is a column knowing lines three to eleven it talks about the dynamic nature of a wireless network and so for example it talks about if the client eighteen a is lost due for example to a power system failure and the data packets of eighteen c can be routed through a different client eighteen the so that's an indication of the dynamic moment that's a good question and i'll explain the reason why is because when this happens and let's say now there's a different power now that goes through eighteen the instead of eighteen because eighteen a was lost so now there's a different transmission for the wireless network but it takes a finite amount of tarring for that difference in the past to be recorded in the map of transmission hat is supposed to be updated will be updated but at any particular instant of time the map may not contain every single transmission path that goes through the ones we've ever be under inclusive as opposed to over claims to being more than one second no in fact i just found another one on column twenty seven which is it page one one zero and it's at line appendix of a network that contains only one note that single note is labeled and the server is part of that labeling process provides the node with the one and only route in the system so it's relying upon a teaching  on a dictionary definition for its interpretation of the word by that appears in the claim that dictionary is dated subsequent to the filing date of the three fourteen patent so one of only require a client it doesn't always only say what the client is doing it requires both the client an assessor what the client doing something and the server doing something else the server process includes controlling two implementing who's doing this last that the very last step in the claim explicitly tells you who's doing it it's done by the server node which changes to upgrade the select the transmission path to an optimized transmission  so the claim explicitly requires the client to do something and the server know to do other things and this last limitation in the claim requires the client kno and the whole idea of this invention is that our it's more efficient way to do routing our to have both the client do some things and the server to do other things and that explains rather specification and in this focused on the fact that it's not any map of transmission paths it's specifically the map of transmission paths of the first network and so we have to look at what are the characteristics of the first network that are described in the are actually two provisions that i think speak to this the first is that it's describes the first network as having at at least one second though it so can can be just one and then with respect to the path the provision goes on to say that the that the path can be a direct one from the gateway to the second no and so it can have just this direct path from the gateway to the second and there can be under the claimed own language only one second herb so this provision the map of the transmission transmission pa of the first network given the description of the first network in the claim what is recited by it specifically it must in compass the situation in which there is only one node and one path from the gateway to that node and i think of further indication that that is the correct construction comes from the quite distinct phrase that appears in claim twelve and no coun network claim fifteen omits that phrase to a plurality of second and it does so because claim to fifteen specifies that the first network may have only one second and under this court's precedent in light of the choice of different language in these two claims the court has to give effect to that and so that the map in claim fifteen has to be construed to encompass a map a situation where the first network has only one second though and a direct path from the gateway to that second the other coun that quote there isn't a single example in the specification of a transmission map having only one path and yet figured to be describes a situation in which you have once server fourteen and one second node five and a path between the two so we are not relying on it the board didn't rely on it we are just using that to push back from an assertion by the  that somehow this construction is inconsistent with the specification and the figures but the board correctly relied on the language of the claim itself the contrast between the language of claim twelve and name fifteen and it reached the correct instruction that whether the map has to include to maps include maps that include all of the links for example at bendix ninety nine there's a reference to the controller maintains a map of the links of the first network and that four where there's a reference to that server provide in quote the complete tree the complete tree certainly supports the inclusion of all but again all really isn't what's at stake here stake here was a subsidiary construction that the board adopted which was that the map of transmission paths of the first network had to encompass that circumstance in which there was only one second node and one map to it i suppose it's evident the reason there was i kind of interested in in the question is you have one point or set of points about indications in the claim language other than the language that you're defining here that there can be systems in which there is just one node putting that aside there's a question is there one ordinary english understanding of map of transmission paths that would naturally itself in compass single note system and the one that i thought of was map of existing transmission house which by which i mean all of them and so it's at least interesting to me to know whether the spec makes more or less clear as i think the institution decision may have said the board didn't quite but that us certainly your read brief whether this phrase means a map of all of the transmission past because it gives one kind of in ordinary language interpretation that the a reference to column nine that council made during argument defeats that it doesn't mention the maps it simply talks about the system being dynamic which is not inconsistent  with the map being comprehensive and so i think that you're right to think that one understanding of pan's is not that it is necessarily always in every instance plural but rather when it's me map of paths of the network it's whatever powers there are in the network are in the map and when that network has one path that's the  map and that's what the board found and that's consistent again with not only the specific reference to the fact that the first network could includes at least one second which means that it could be just one but also immediately following the reference to the the map of transmission pass and then ask first network being that there can be a direct path from the gateway to  a second node with respect to claim ten the board lied on and i think correctly the structure and context of claim ten and the fact that the phrase about implementing by the server no changes upgrade the selected transmission path appears at the end of the less of things that the client node controller is doing the client i'm thinking about the structure of this that might weigh in that direction is the fact that that implementing board has not broken out in a separate little way and it it's not but i don't think that because one of the steps that the client node controller undertakes is making a request for an updated radio transmission path that to the server no and what counsel does with that language is suggest that the client node controller is asking for the server know to update the transmission path but that's not what it says it says the client node controller is implementing a process requesting updated radio transmission path that from the server node and so when it says in response there are two it's not in response dictionary definition that they say supports them that killed by a bullet but in that instance the bullet is not the agent the agent is the shooter the bullet is the means by which the killing is  the agent is having a lot more interesting than i well that i'm just saying that the example that they choose doesn't prove their point the agent here is the is the client a controller and it's accomplishing this by the server meaning through the means one of the it is using it it's helping as the as the board set and that's and that supported more over if that specification in several places including car eleven and eight reflect instances where the client node is the one updating the path with the help of the server the server may validate that may reflect that changed updated path in the in that the map or tree but it's only after the client has updated the path and that is of point you to length from client eighteen b to client eighteen the this process is part of optimization process of the network ten so again the client is noting that there is a better route and then making a change to effect ate that the server in each of these instances can have a role to play but it does not require that the server be the one to update the path that's inconsistent with what the specification provides which is a page seventy seven of the appendix and it's consistent with the construction that i gave you before step number one thirty two this whole thing about figure six is what one of the server  algorithm is because the server has knowledge of what's going on in our network each of the client has knowledge of what's going on in its vicinity and the beauty of this claimed routing algorithm is that it uses  claim ten when it's saying that certain things and done by the client and certain things are done by the server and the last step it says that the client is requesting updated radio transmission  seven of the enjoin appendix which includes the institution decision the board when it instituted said as follows the third line down thus on this record the most logical weeding of this  doing stuff service the one stuff in my or the reference that they asserted against claim ten as i indicated in my brief only the client is picking the know that it wants to attach to the server does not determine what no client has to the claim claim ten requires two different things it requires a selection of the path of an entire path and it's done by the server of an optimized path plane ten the explicit language requires two things require selection of a path and also says who does what does the selection of the optimize