receiver address comprised unscalable address of at least one remote device the plain language of this phrase requires that the address of at least one remote device can be scalable to the board's instruction to reach that requirement out of the claim and that is how the board was able to find johnson and validates the claims even though the board acknowledged that none of the receiver addresses and johnson include a scalable remote vice address do i understand correctly that this claim construction argument applies to both of the rejections johnson and the the other one place and plus and i don't think the others disputes that that if you're right about the claim construction the whole thing  can't stand it even used to go back or in your view you get to work with a victory the answer is yes to all of the sub parts that question your own now the board was persuaded by emerson's argument that because the claim language says at least one remote device individual transceiver but that is not correct the claim language does not read on that entire concept principally because figure eight not every implementation of figure eight would satisfy the claim language and back to the inventor had simply wanted to claim that general concept of a scalable to address he would have just used the words scalable receiver address that would have encompass the entire concept of figure eight of being able to send different messages of different sizes but instead the inventor included the additional requirement that the receiver address must further include at least a risk you'd be a scalable dress of at least one remote device so this is a nested address within an address structure and this additional claim language must be given meaning and the most fair that's very on the well the receiver address which is the to address this claim doesn't have the limitations that this could be scalable or non scalable correct that's correct it is even though the spec in multiple places does describe the two address as being scalable you would say those are certain if you agree with this but i think that may be where your argument is most logically that the board got confused because the specification itself does refer to the scalable to address at least two or three places i think you're right your honor i mean you probably articulate it better than i was going to there are different types of skill ability discussed in the pattern one is the general scale ability of the t address as you just alluded to that seems to be what the board glom onto because it saw this discussion of a scalable to address but that's actually not what's being claimed in these claims the the other side the scale ability that's discussed in the patent is the scale times and i think that just this is what this is the kind of drafting that causes you to be in front of us right because the pattern is drafted to use this word a lot but i don't think ever with regard to the exact device it used it or twenty six and it says that the length of the unique transceiver address can be varied as necessary given individual design constraints and that is actually the undisputed definition that everybody agrees to of what a ski global address so although believe that the claims are drafted on or what they're referring to here with this language is the scalable portion of figure eight that's represented by bytes for through six where you can now address an individual transceiver using a  an address that can vary in size and in fact we explained i ask you can we go back for just one second and you and i both agree that since the claim with regard to the two address to the receiver address doesn't in front of it if it isn't limited do we then is it possible that the board's decision to be affirmed rather than vacated even if i agree with you because what they found is even if i really think they got the claim construction wrong even the correct construction your definition of receiver addresses broader not narrow our definition of receiver address requires that it include within it they skip a at least illustration of the brief i think they took the word scalable and they moved in the claim they put in front of she broke dressing and by the way that's exactly the same point that two previous board panels made is that it's not enough that the receiver address be scal being scaled and what these claims are getting out of something more specific there are saying that to the extent there scale ability that scale ability has to be due to the fact that the receiver of the address at least one remote device itself is scalable that with respect to johnson what  board did is it found based on its construction that this claim language is only talking about the broad concept of being able to send three different types of messages the board went and found three different types of formats and johnson and said well these are three formats that can be used to send these three different types of messages but the boarding knowledge made a factual finding that none of those three formats actually has a scalable remote device addressed in a so what the board did is it has said that the choice between these three non scalable formats constitutes a scalable address because it is using this broad construction where all you have to find is this broad concept of being able to send three different types of addresses but the hypothetical choice between three non scalable addresses of different sizes does not constitute a scalable address just like the choice between three non or three hats of different sizes doesn't constitute a scalable half you can pick a small head off the shelf or a medium sized cat or a large cat but then whatever you have in your hand is not a stale it will have is just to add whatever size you chose i don't i mean me maybe you're right about this and maybe minor standing is too simplistic simplistic but scalable doesn't mean  commit number of possibilities and if there are only three options that you can choose from but you can choose any of those three why don't you have a scalable circumstance you are goes to the claim language of i could draw your attention to the claim born in appendix eighty five and focus on the on the last limitation of the claim rather than the st limitation a lot but this is a claim that's talking about communicating between remote devices so it's communicating between the various transceivers that are out there in the mesh network and the last limitation everything together and it says the remote device is configured to send a pre formatted message comprising the receiver address and the receiver addresses what has to contain the scalable aggressive at least one remote device so we're not talking about a hypothetical choice now between message formats we're talking about a single message format because it's in a pre formatted message when you go to johnson of course the board was looking at three different message formats and saying that essentially it created a composite or a hypothetical format that had the features of all three of those but that's actually not what johnson teaches johnson is teaching three different formats you can take the broadcasting class format from johnson and drop it into a pre formatted message and that will it is but they do think that the records factual findings are in our favor here are the board made a specific factual finding that none of the three message formats individually satisfies the scalable address limitation but that's because they construed it wrong that's correct they made an error and claimed destruction but then they made a factual finding that is still subject to substantial evidence review and there is substantial evidence to support that factual finding which is that none of the three message formats in johnson satisfies the rim of the scal limitation here under the credit construction so if your if your honour's reversed that construction there is now a fact finding by the board that is supported by substantial evidence that would preclude jobson from meeting our claim limitation is it a matter of claim construction or something claim is actually talking about the fact that it's talking about a pre formatted message that means you've got a single format and that message has to contain a scalable address of the least one with the least one in the device i think that's claimed construction  you can't now say well the choice between three formats satisfies that because the claim is very clearly talking about one format that particular format and that particular message has to satisfy the claim limitation you're going into your please the court the board construed the disputed limitation consistent with both the language of the text itself and of the specification and notably it's consistent with said goes own construction of the same limitation in the eastern district of texas as reflected the appendix seven hundred and ninety seven where they said the opposite of what they say here they said the specification is clear that's ok this is gaylord said the opposite of what it says here to times you know we've got everybody being in conflict well why don't you just go to the language and tell tell me why the word scalable should be imported in front of the words receiver that's not that's not what we do your honor and it's not the word it's a scalable address of at least one remote device and it's the at least one that's a read out and that's important because  column ten when which one of the two instances in which the specification uses the phrase and described scalable address it talks about an address between one and six bytes in for the is one byte or the need get dressed which is six bytes and the broadcast address is to the intended receiver possibly yes you know princess because it's at least one receiver the receiver could be one in the six by instance or it could be all in the broadcast instance that's what scale ability is as described in the specification and is the same thing that is claimed when he says a scal of at least one remote device so it has to come for him and the possibility that the address is not to a unique remote device but to multiple remote devices that's the broadcast address or a multiple  multicast address and that's within the specifications description of the scalable address as the board found both the johnson and the references disclosed scale ability of precisely the same type of scale ability that is claimed in yet i think you stick with that lame construction longer before you move over to johnson because i don't necessarily think that i follow you just yet and i want to i want to understand what your say the word scalable appears before the transceiver limitation now could of course it can be more than one transceiver and each of those would then have to have a scalable address it seems to me but i don't understand why that necessitates that we put the word scalable into the to address that comes before it which doesn't have it i will grant you there are at least two places in the patent where this patent talks about a scalable to address receiver address but that isn't part of this claim so why would we import that limitation in here well the this claim is talking about the fields in the pre formatted message the receiver address being address of more than one remote device that's the broadcast now not more than one at least one has to comprehend it has to be within it that it couldn't be multiple remote devices that's why it says at least one otherwise it would just say of a remote device or one remote device which is not reset and says at least one so it has to comprehend the possibility of the scale ability being for multiple remote we're using the rise reasonable interpretation it comprehends the circumstance in which to escape ability is of individual you need to address it but it also comprehends the possibility where the scale  between the address being the one byte address which goes to all remote devices or a multicast address which might be two bytes that goes to a subset of remote devices or a six byte in this system you can have an address a single address which when used produces something on the receiving end at multiple we most divisive yes your honor that's the that's the f f address in the example figure not the for example on appendix a seventy eight it uses the address f f that's described in figure eight on appendix seventy seven as a broadcast all devices one byte address and that is what is described at columns nine to ten an address of one byte and it goes to all remote devices that's what's described in the specification again it's the only instance in the specification that really describes what is scalable addresses both references transceivers and so the because this is be our eye it can't be just the one narrow construction that they prefer fir today because that gets them out of the prior art it has to be what is comprehended within the language and the language comprehends scale ability with tween one in six bytes between a broadcast address or an individual address which would receive which would reach interrupt me after the specification in the example you keep pointing to is obviously contemplating only three unique transceiver addresses which is why it's allocating three at most three unique transceiver address the nd bite is the identification b but base by three hundred and thirty six can be used for the unique receiver addresses either standalone or integrated so i guess i don't necessarily understand this technology define the unique identification for a single node a single transceiver so you need all six plates to do that that they can be in sort of increasing something so there's another use of the word scale ability that isn't referring to bytes what is it i can tell you there are three in the pattern ok i didn't but i assumed that's what you were thinking which is why you pause know well what what it says is it says it scalable between one and six bytes i'm more thinking about the fact that the prior art for example johnson describes an address that can be  in johnson where if the address is using up fewer bits the message gets more bits you can use more for that so when it uses the word scalable there is it referring to the varying number  for that message i'm trying to understand your you've told me what you understand the word scalable to mean in the context of this invention but i find the word scalable appearing all over the place in this patent and i don't think it means the same thing everywhere it appears that i'm not certain i understand i've let me be specific that i'm describing what scalable address means because that particular phrase which is used in claim one and claim ten and the others that are in dispute is what the term that is described in the specification as between one and six bytes obviously there can be scale ability in theory that is not in terms of bytes it can be that of a different  true it seems based on claim made at least it maybe but in any event quick because back to claim one is the problem i have is just because you have a scalable address for at least one remote device i don't understand why that scale ability of the unique i'd rather address that's on pages thirty five to thirty six now this is what it was was construing claim ten but it's the same concept of scalable address and there they acknowledged that in johnson it describes the address for a unique device could be thirty two dollars bits or forty bits four or five bytes and depending upon that's depending upon the combined with a voice band transceiver and that they are dressed with a single unique address so that gets to the point of what my counsel was talking about it doesn't vision the ability to address multiple devices with respect to can you focus on what he said about the figure eight the st what's the f and yes broadcast all devices a one by address i think what i was understanding and i may be misunderstanding is that he was saying that you can have a single byte it will be an address to send a message with that address it will go to all the remote devices there are so why is that that not device two reasons one it's a broadcast address the specification makes a differentiation between broadcast addresses and addresses to individual remote devices such as a transceiver where where is that yes well if you listed you can look at fi a broadcast address it doesn't even know who it's going to it just broadcasts it out and every but every receiver within its broadcast range is going to get that message it may not even know who's in that range because transceivers can come and go because they're portable and nd reason is a one byte address so it's not scalable it's always one byte and so that's an example of figure eight in an implementation of figure eight that's possible under figure eight but wouldn't meet this particular claim limitation because it's not a scal address of at least one remote device it's a non scalable one byte address that goes to all remote devices indiscriminately