claims of the six sixty one dollars patent the board instituted not only three and only cancelled only to clear the board's obvious this ruling on these two claims should be reversed because it is based on an improper claim construction is easiest to understand the claim construction issue for claim five by referring to figure three d at page forty eight of the appendix figure three d shows a sensor identified by number three hundred and ten in the upper middle portion of the output of the sensor is sent to a data controller identified by the number three to four via a data interface identified by the number three to one as indicated in the specification at page sixty five of the appendix column nine lines seven through nineteen the sensor in its simplest form could be a two state device such as a smoke along the data controller going back to figure three d which is identified by number three to four and codes the data from the sensor into a code using the table at three hundred and twenty five as explained in the specification at page sixty five of the appendix column nine lines forty eight to forty nine the data control is configured to apply a specific code consistent with the input the encoded electrical signal of the sensor is then formatted along with the which is shown in figure three d as item three to eight into a message three hundred and thirty four transmission to the local gateway which is identified by two hundred and ten via the radio frequency says you have a smoke problem or it's less than that so that's the output you get of from a sensor but that's not what the claimed invention sans the claimed invention takes that and then convert it to a code and exemplary codes are shown in the table and so that is what is covered by the claims that the specification requires two separate steps required encoding the electrical signal a column nineteen beginning at line seventeen and this claim at that location recites consistent with the specification a transmitter that is configured to perform two separate and independent casks one is to encode the electrical signal that was generated by a sensor and the nd is to transmit the encoded electrical signal and transmitter identification information in a radio frequency signal so the transmitter that's recited in the claim ha perform two separate tasks in fact the nd task that it performs encoded electrical signal being included in the radio frequency signal the worth of the appears before it encoded electrical signal so it's clearly referring to what was encoded in that st configuration of the transmitter so the board's overly broad construction of band coding as encompassing formatting data far of transmission is incorrect for three reasons number one it's inconsistent with the specification as i just explained with respect to figure three d number two it's inconsistent with the language of claim five putting data into a message for transmission there isn't a document in the record in this case that says that merely putting a message putting a data into a message and transmitting it but they are nor am i aware of any document that's ever been written that says such a thing for example if i write a letter to my mother it doesn't become encoded just because i stick it in a novel before i send it to ya to look as additional information from my mother's address but it doesn't change the content of the letter that i'm sending to my mother the board's flawed claim construction requires a reversal of its conclusion that the prior art would have taught the encoding limitations of the board base that's obvious conclusion encoding claim limitation soley on mason emerson relies heavily on an annotated version of mason's figure three i think you can understand this appeal i showed you the picture from figure three day and you is added to the front which is a header and added to the end that's both shaded and beige but the data of the meter data that shaded in pink does not change again  turn the and see me to protocol packet is merely place within the data packet in the c e bus radio frequency protocol but this tional adequate data is added to the front and the end both shaded in yellow but again the the meter specific data that they did that was read from the meter which is shaded in pink itself is not encoded by either the an meter protocol or the c e bus are of protocol and this is significant because claim five of the six hundred and sixty one patent explicitly requires not just any data to be encoded but instead a particular signal the electrical signal generated by a sensor so there's a big difference between what mace and this which is just put meta data into a packet of communication and what the six hundred and sixty one pattern claims which is when you look at the figure three day you read information from a sensor and you don't send that information rather you st go to what table you encode it and you put the sending i look for the terms and code in the code in mesa and i did a search with the computer because that's more accurate than what i can do by just looking at it with my eyes i didn't with respect to the nd claim construction issue for claim six emerson on the board it improperly construed the claim limitation of a transmitter configured to transmit a relatively low power radio frequency signal the board construed the claim limitation of a transmitter configured to transmit a relatively low power radio frequency signal such that a transmitter that used repeating trans rs transmits a relatively low power radio frequency signal but this construction is not consistent with how a person of ordinary skill in the us would have done this stood that turn and use thing claim six and why didn't specification nearby receivers is an indication of a low power a relatively low power limitation beings out re i have two responses number one there really isn't  same transmitter you're looking at a transmitter that has a particular power level and under the board's interpretation that same transmitter that has one power level could be considered to have both a relatively high power and simultaneously a relatively low power depending upon whether there was a repeater so if there was a repeater they would say oh this transmitter is relatively low power and if there was not a repeater it would say up this transmitter is relatively high power but the same transmitter can't be relatively high power and relatively low power does it show me how as one power and that's it so that's why the board's construction is illogical the board's decision the board's flawed claim construction requires a reversal of its conclusion that the prior art would have taught the relatively low power claim limitation of claim six  the board ruled that claim six was obvious because emerson's petition asserts that because mason the school is that it's radio units are nearby repeaters in order to effectively communicate a person  aboard a school in the i would understand mason's radio units transmit a relatively low power or radio frequency signal but as i explained before that type of reasoning is based upon a flawed claim construction  mason does not use the word nearby or any synonym thereof like for example close by so there's no indication mason that it's transmitters a low power council instance if you lower the power then you need more transceivers and so it would make the system more complicated and addition there was an assertion made that if you lower the power you decrease the end of ferentz well you would decrease the in a ferentz on that particular transmitter but because you're using a low college friends meter you'd have to use many more transmitters and so the aggregate interference from signal the board probably construe the term this to simply be encoded information representing the electrical signal generated by the sensor that's at appendix thirteen notably suppose own construction of that same term i consistent with that it's a code generated from an electrical signal that was generated by a sensor from a physical condition that's an appendix five hundred and seventy seven and simple as run away from that proposed construction on appeal here because it undermines their they are going to the tempting to pursue their trying to carve out from the claim to read an additional imitation into the claims that would preclude or exclude are a particle conversion from being part of the other potential encoding scheme in the board properly rejected that argument below idea that there could be a whole bunch of different coding scheme to whole bunch of different codes but as long as the sender of the particular message and the receiver of the pick their message understand what that encoding scheme is that's encoding at and there's nothing further or there's  additional required beyond that so just like in coding schemes that sip goes pointing to in the context of the six x one pattern mason discloses the same concepts page twenty seven dollars of the of the re brief as a couple excerpted figures figure three and figure one from maze and that help just explain what is to splitters are in figure one you have a series of different meters that are communicating  one another as well as with the r f no collector and then that information is then taken and then transmitted from the are of no collector which is the equivalent of the claimed gateway and sent over to the computer on the right hand side of th page you have the particular encoding schemes that are applied in each and every one of these levels at the very bottom of bigger three you start off with the meter data that is then included into the n c meter protocol that is then encoded into the  explaining that to that that table data also is accompanied by a one byte acknowledgement code to buy the blank field and a one by check some which has to go along with the table data as part of that particular encoding to putting something in an envelope at least one way and they may be correct that one might understand what he is what they're saying about figure three is that's a seri helpful illustration of what's happening but if you look at figure you'll see bet that data that comes in from from the sensor needs to be then converted into bits and bytes ones and zeros and a particular in coding scheme if it wasn't if there wasn't an encoding scheme the recipient on the other end would just be getting handed it was undisputed below that there was a particular motivation to combine that you have less interference when you're using a relatively low power signal versus a higher power signal scipio had put in evidence from their expert that it might be more costly or might be more complicated to use low power signals that that's not the test the test is whether or not there would have been a motivation to actually apply these teachings from cunningham and the board found that there would be also credit inaccessible meters that also would have meant to a person of ordinary skill in the art that you are using a relatively low power signal as opposed to a high power signal crediting again mr k s testimony on that point specification when you're using repeaters as opposed to simply using a higher power signal you are therefore a person of order skill still never to properly understood that you're simply that is using a relatively low power signal as opposed to a higher power one thank you your honor opposing counsel in the chair that i was importing limitations into the claim i did no such thing i'm explaining what the word encoded means that was the idea of the claim construction portion of the with several different parts for compliance with a communication protocol like the top four bars on the five bar figure three well the claim requires in particular it doesn't require an encoding just anything the claim if you look at claim five it requires encoding a particular data like the electrical signal that was generated by the sensor so that's the thing that the claim requires to be encoded and that thing is indicated by the picture it's not adjusted and this is very different than what's in the specification mr davis says it adjusted in at least the sense that there are translations into bits and the addition of some bits for like a check some probably more than one bit for some check some bits and other things so it's not look like it's just being put into a section of a larger package but in fact dark red right that was an example of just additional data and if you look at the figure three figure three being there's two items that are put in the message one is a  and the nd is the encoded electrical signal that comes from a sensor well there's no allegation that the transceiver idea that's just put in the message is encoded and in fact it is despite the point i'm trying to make is that merely putting data in a message is not encoding if it were then the transceiver id data that is merely put into the packet would also be considered to be encoding and it's not the figure three d and the claim are crystal clear two data items are sent in the message one is not encoded one is encoded encoded you have to do a separate step you have to go in that