their final case this morning is number seventeen this twelve seventy two scam or versus master card international inc mr baumgartner so let me first start with this me see if i can understand this a little bit better if i understand davies what what they've east show is or at least what the board found that they'd be shows is that the token has information in it has received information which is in it about the user or the user's account and that then information is entered into the terminal about the pay  the amount and that the token sends the information about the user to the terminal which creates the check and sends it back for a signature to the token and the token then forwards it to the terminal the terminal sends it off if if that is the correct understanding of what davies shows do you lose on that particular point if it is true this is issued to your honor if it is true that a test ride into the field is stored in the blank check on the davies token if this field is read by the terminal assembled into a check and then returns to the token then under the bor under the master cards theory that was apparently adopted by the board it's not of my description is correct do you lose if your description is correct then we would lose on the issue to what issue would remain issue one the single party construction and thirty four this is the part of master card's brief where they talk about the day the system and there's no question that they say the receiving act of the very strict sequencing requirements for example the claim steps must be performed in order and furthermore there must be a credential issue we would say before any the steps occur and so the preprograming of the token with the customer identity feel takes place by the card issuers bank and then that token is given to the customer if that is what they also say is the previously issued credential limitation so if you just say that the customer identity feel being stored on the token is the act of receiving then you trip up over what we say is a proper reading of the credential being previously issued because the field will be  like to focus on the third point that they made were since the customers request i e an electronic check is formed into investigation presented to the token davies does not equate a request with the electronic check the request that the user could form at the terminal could only contain the variable information which is sent to the token and at the token the electronic check is a symbol but the point is dealt with the board of the board's decision on this point is to send it slow and so they really don't make any factual findings about what david's disclose is they simply say let's look at the reply brief and they do cite some points from davies but it's really this fourth point that drives the point home that daisy davies does not disclose a completed electronic check coming back through the terminal to the token if you focus on point number four  disclose that the terminal is the one that actually assembles the check the check the blank check information which includes the customer identity field is stored on the token davies does not say contrary to what master card position is there's nothing in da it says this is simply process of a completed check in the token embodiment takes place at the terminal it's not in there and i would like to direct the board to this point in davies and so your forty one about but tell me yet so our position is that davies does not disclose the electronic check being fully completed at the token and then said i'm sorry at the terminal and then said that the token f includes customer information bank information all the token needs is the variable information and one can speculate about how this happens in davies but the most logical thing to assume is that this variable information is input in the terminal from the terminal and you'll see that this part of davey says the smart card in its current form depends on a separate terminal for input and output and this is a security risk in several ways so what we're talking about here is  smart card system that davy saying is flawed and that davies wants to improve upon by use of this token now you get down to the check into the card from the terminal the part that underline mastercard never ever goes beyond that part of the sentence they just put in a little cs but if you read the whole thing it says the check enters the card from the terminal and the card owner cannot be entirely sure what is being signed so this is talking about a smart part  embodiment that davis is trying to improve upon through use of the token if you go further down it says to avoid these serious risks almost the whole signature operation should be under control of the owner of the secret  better with a token and the only disclosure davies says in the smart card that complete a check enters the smart card from the terminal but it says that's a security risk you don't want this information leading the smart part or the terminal and being sent up to the token because it leaves the possession of the secret key holder and you don't know what's being signed so what date he says is we're going to prove that with this token system where it's got a keyboard and  smart part of body image that's being discredited by davies for one part of the claim limitations it for the other part it's reliant on the token environment to separate of body else if so that's a problem for master talking about clay fifty one is dealing with the same set of information claim fifty one's third step is determining the authenticity of this information so the information at issue may or may not be authentic that's the point authentic excludes figure seven from consideration because as we said in our reply brief the information that is input in your seven is the gold standard information that's the information you know is authentic and what you're trying to figure out in this process is after it leaves the check originator they've your seven passes to a check recipient then goes through a network and finally reaching the originators bank you want to know if someone has changed this information and so when the received in claim fifty one has to be the information received at the originators bank because it may or may not be authentic and one other point on this the the claim step is receiving funds transfer information that's the first step and the third step it is determining authenticity of the received funds transfer information so the party that does the determination of the received funds transfer information is determining authenticity of what back in the first death not some information that a different party received at a far earlier point in time indeed the originators say it has no access to the information that was originally created in figure seven it only has access to the information it receives and it's critical that the originators bank determine authenticity of that information because that's the information it's being x asked to pay upon and so the information back within your  information the information and figure eight b is the information that leaves to be authenticated and that's why i think your seven there's no receiving step that can apply to claim fifty one because we know that information is the gold standard it's not  davies the terminal prepares the check since it into the token token science to check the returns of to the to the terminal there's no doubt the board made that finding it's a finding that supported by the text of davies as well as the testimony of our expert  most of them are around page eight thirty one and eight thirty two of the record well i guess that question plus i mean what wasn't in the davies reference discloses that the check comes back from the terminal bottom left side of that figure shows the token crosses the intelligence right and the terminal is right about the terminals above it and so you see accused board where you make the request correct and so there's an arrow from that keyboard going into the token that's the beginning of this process so you go up you say i want to make a withdrawal type and whatever you need to type in and start their process that terminal then creates a check message symbols the message appropriately for the request when you when you say that that terminal then responds  to your bag to verify that you know you signed the message and that you have enough money to complete this was wrong so that's how davies works and for the for the details as to where the token where the discussion of how the check is assembled appears yeah as i said go back going back to appendix eight thirty one the middle paragraph in that and that page that begins a corporate customer if you skip down about halfway through there's a line that says if a terminal is needed in two lines on that page describing figure twenty three the customers request a form into a message and presented to the token here at the site itself and then there's further description on  thirty three as well so even i think that if you know more than six sufficient evidence for the board to have concluded that in fact that's what happens in davies which is what they did conclude in the final written decision unless there's any questions about that issue i'd like to return them to the claim construction issue this one i think is fairly easy although certainly appellant is presented some creative arguments to make it look more difficult than it really is here we have a method claim that includes four steps and methods not live to any particular entity performing those steps it doesn't say what entity has to perform the steps it doesn't say that a single entity does have to perform all of these steps and this cour laws clear that the inventor is entitled to the full scope of his claim you're not going to limit it to these these embodiments from the specification especially not ones they're not depicted in the figures that are described as alternative  input and individual words within these claims steps might mean and how the individual steps might have to operate on data together but there's been no claim construction has been proposed for any of those things so for instance you heard them talk about the gold standard and that some data here has to be the gold standard that's not in the claim are they seeking a construction that would require that the data you know was that the problems of the data was uncertain at some particular time in the claim i mean if that's their argument they want to put that into the claim they can argue for the such construction but they haven't all they've argued for is the construction that a single entity has to perform these four steps nothing in the claim language supports that nothing in the specification supports that in fact as we pointed out as the board noted the specification is inconsistent with such a reading because there are two to embodiments and the specification makes clear that both of them are supposed to be within the scope that says it's transaction without a t m example then we're we argue that you could put all four of those steps as being performed by the originators bank so the person who's holding that card the person who's withdrawing the money actually it's their bank that that's arguably doing all four of those steps because at least two of them are done in this token and this intelligent smart going to walk work from well no the board didn't because the board concluded as it should have that you don't need to show that all these steps before by the same entity the board just said no the claim says there's four steps in davies has four steps they don't need to go further you only have to reach this question if you were to agree with mr stanbury counsel that all four steps have to form by one entity and then we have the alternative theory argued to the board that wasn't reached that all four steps are performed by a single entity meaning the banks the originators bank because that that's the entity that program the smart card and put this key on there and then design a smart card to work in a certain received funds transfer information if that information is being provided at the first step when the user inputs that information presumably authentic at that point well i mean the point of this whole system is to verify that the funds transfer information that ultimately shows up for redemption is valid so what you're saying i take it from that is that when you referred to cleanse transfer information here for it to that funds transfer information and all of its iterations throughout the entire pa fox i am and that is how the specification seems to be using the term as well where he uses that same identification info in various places passes you follow it you would say i take it correct me if this is a mis construction of your argument but i cares about if it wouldn't have changed but obviously the specification is trying to protect against the possibility that it might be so yes that's right i mean i'll point out another thing about their argument which is i think it goes too far because if you take it's if you take the logic there argument then this claim wouldn't read on the other embodiment either because the last element of claim fifty one has you checking the van to determine if it's authentic right so this transferring of fun stuff in claim fifty one the last piece of it that's based on whether or not the van is authentic under their reading the van would have been created mediately prior to the step being performed by the same city that's doing the checking so it would make no sense under the way the reason this claim so narrow that this claim of knowledge or make any sense at all there's no reason to adopt that construction the board certainly didn't i think the more natural reading is just to say yeah what they mean here is these four steps in the way that the specification describes them the two different ways the specification describes them it's it's clear in the specification column two for instance talks about both ways in the summ invention and says they're both part of a you know transaction document processing which records you know these priority systems and then you know there's no dispute that the way of doing this i so there is no question master card agrees in the rec roof and in the c p m that this claim covers the situation where the originators bank receives information generates a new venue and authenticates the information by as the authentication process if you look at figure seven figure seven is described as describing the check issuance process and there are other claims like claim eighty nine which is directed to a method for authenticat method for originating a check or payment instrument so the preamble of these claims tells you that mr stamp order was familiar with his workflow and he was claiming different parts of this invention with different claims that's completely normal now there was a suggestion that this info that flows through the system is always the same info that could not be further from the truth in the consent of the negative situation where the information is entered by the originator check for one hundred absolutely considers this to be two separate sets of information with no further than box block sixty in figure eight b where you have two pieces of information that are put into a  which is the gold standard and so it's completely erroneous for mastercard to say that it's the same information that flows through the pattern that it's not that it's not it's it's all funds transfer information it may at some determined whether at least a portion of the received funds transfer information is authentic that contemplates that the information may be exactly the same as was initially input or it may not but it's still a funds transfer information but it's still funds transfer information but the point is that claim fifty one doesn't talk about just funds transfer information it talks about received funds transfer information that needs to be authenticated in that information is received in the claims first step so the party passed from party to party that information doesn't ever get authenticated until you get to the very end process where the originators bank gets these instructions it receives and says i have to authenticate this but why is that a problem that's  authenticity but correct that's a problem for master card in the board's construction because the claim is contemplating that this receiving funds transfer information may be fraudulent right at the at the point at which it ultimately arrive at its destination correct but that's why isn't that exactly what they've done it that's not what did well that that it that is why this claim has to be construed as requiring one party who authenticates the funds transfer information to perform all steps in the problem with davies is that the board relied on two different parties the customer using its token and the customer's bank as each performing two of those steps