this case and i think a little simpler than the one we just heard is what is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the common ordinary term traffic jam as it's used in the seventy three patent ford said i said do that one more time what's is what is the what is the ordinary what is i should say this what is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term traffic jam as it's used in the seventy three page i thought i heard the word reasonable in erm was entitle to a narrow construction that it means a sudden unpredictable change in traffic in a segment as compared to regular times in that it added in i e individual statistical t room and so and so the only argument that we're really faced with is this argument that context somehow or another answers this question but traffic jam is not a term that requires any special construction nor was there any testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would say oh traffic jam well you commoners refer to traffic jam this way but we scientists refer to it in this other way no in fact the prior art the cited at the beginning of the patent uses the term traffic jam  that's wrong but even the claim language itself there is firstly it talks about real time traffic real time traffic jam it's not just traffic jam in general correct and then it's i think the language in the claim that term hears in the context of certain language you throughout these time factors that you look at i am very sympathetic to the board's reading i don't know maybe there is an ordinary meaning of traffic jam maybe there isn't but when there is or ordinary meaning of traffic jam and by the way there is an ordinary meaning the other side agrees that there's an ordinary meeting they say so page five of the red brief but if you have a historical statistical record and you were where we were you know that between five and six it's impossible to get across h street because of all the traffic that's not a real time isn't that part of his story to just circle record in the computation given the amount of traffic that is generally air every single day at the same time that may be the case but what the board what the board did here was to take the ordinary term traffic jam the term that the patent owner chose to use in it patent and decided to say that this means something not only not inclusive but very narrow and so let's look at that language there to that the claim language appears in the clause that says computing real time traffic jam identification at various locations of the individual roads by utilizing the sample vehicles for measuring time delays what they want to say that that claim language really means is computing sudden unpredictable changes in traffic but reading that line which computing real time traffic jam identification means is there a traffic jam there at the present time and if it's true every day it's still a traffic jam if it's true only on one day it's a traffic jam if it's true only because there was an accident or a volatile neck or any number of cause it's still a traffic jam and they chose the broad ubiquitous term and then i think there's another important point to remember here as well and they're adopting the broad interpretation in i p r where we're entitled to the broadest reasonable interpretation they're asserting a narrow interpretation this court's decision in google versus intellectual ventur presidential but published decision says that's not appropriate and in fact in that case it remained for consideration of the infringement contentions because the board had not taken them to an into account just like they didn't take it into account in this case but i would suggest she just crossed that the that the the very simple outcome of this case ought to follow very much like that that this court followed about six months ago maybe fewer than that in google versus leak case correctly the claim construction say no you were entitled to the broadest ordinary interpretate broadest reasonable interpretation and the ordinary meaning of traffic jam and under the act we said in our opening brief that owens corning versus fast felt were entitled to judgment were entitled to judgment of obviousness in their brief they offer no argument whatsoever in in that light and so following both corning and following the google versus lee case adopt the claim construction that's the broadest reasonable interpretation and according says that's the end of a game that really ought to be like that it's just like that that's that's the whole point of the of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard is puts read this in the broadest reasonable way that might possibly be read in a district court and then consider it against the prior art that has been cited here you don't even have to do that because the broadest reasonable interpretation if you think both of our interpretations are reasonable ours is broader we should win under that construction they've not offered anything in defense and that conclude that your yes not quite reasonable and not i think you'd actually have to conclude that ours is reasonable and there's no argument made by the board and no argument made by maker in this case that our construction is reasonable if it's within the zone of reasonable the broader one wins that's what b are i says in chief judge proceed if i could turn back to your to the the source of your concern one temporary changes to regular predictable changes three sudden unpredictable changes all three of these in fact look at the language that follows those three the system in the present invention there they are defining what their invention is the system in the president vention is built around an idea of collecting and processing information that describes all not some all those changing conditions now of course none of this is being none of what the board did but only in part what the board did is say that only category three is traffic jam only traffic jams that are caused by sudden unpredictable and unpredictable changes such as traffic accidents etc now here's another important thing to note the language in it columns two and columns night in ten is not exactly the same you'll see that the comment about visiting dignitaries that's in column two in category three right appears in category one it comes down into there's no there is not the sort of clear distinction between these categories this is just a useful way th patentee is say that you can think about the different causes of traffic impediments now they're not using the term traffic jams here but what's clear is that these are meant to be the collection of causes of what all of us know and talk about as traffic jams that is the broadest reasonable interpretation that is what we're entitled to they don't have an argument on validity in response to that is unreasonable we do argue that throughout our brief why is it henri because it ignores clean language surrounding its we're not just considering the term in the abstract apart from the surrounding language of the claim and it's that step as well as surrounding steps and the language of the specification in light of the surrounding language in light of the specification it would be unreasonable to construe traffic jam as as google u through a rerouting procedure which sounds similar to some of their contentions here but it's not that any rerouting procedure would be a traffic jam under the the claims of the patent further judicial stoppel which is the only rubric under which this sort of limitation can come in isn't applicable because there's been no determination in the district case about any claim construction the contention has not been has not been discussed at a court ok let me just go straight i mean  mr christie that is pointed out there is it's really hard to map the stuff out in the claim in theory you've got three categories that are laid out in the claim one of which makes about real time and then you've got these two places in the  ok so there's two factors listed at the end of playing twelve there's regular travel times and then there's updating a regular travel times those are both regular times and then the last category and claim twelve is a real time traffic jams  for when current travel times are used rather than regular travel time hardliner you are on line time line thirty seven to fifteen talks about the rd category and how that gives truly real time keeper abilities and then also separately at column twelve lines twenty nine to thirty eight context of the claims in the patents to read traffic jam to encompass any sort of congestion whether normal or abnormal they talk about that in their brief school those as as recanting what he had said but he didn't he said divorced from any context you can interpret it that way but in the context of these claims and in this patent it must be read as an abnormal slowdown as compared to regular times  also say in the briefing there's some misunderstanding that the claim language itself  i would just say the distinction in the claim language makes clear that computing individual statistical travel time estimates regular times is different than computing real time traffic jam identification by utilizing sample vehicles for measuring time to rush hour is already accounted for in the regular times it would be redundant to conflate these two and it's an important issue it's an important distinction within the patent both in the claims i think i have two points of rebuttal your honor and i'm not going to touch the issue of even under the board's claim construction i think the briefs adequately address that issue but we think that the simpler more straightforward path is simply to give the term traffic jam it broadest reasonable interpretation the three categories argument that's made by my friend is just that it's an argument it doesn't match up in the way that he wants it to man and if he had intended it if if the patent intended it to map onto the three claim limitations that they now say that it maps on then you would see much more parallelism in the language and you wouldn't have used the term traffic jam the ubiquitous broad and ordinary term to describe what sort of information of real time system has nor would you say to all three of these components are required for a truly real time system to be to be in place the comment about the visiting dignitaries i think my friend misspoke at the beginning and said that it wasn't in the rd category it certainly is in the rd category column two and finally the the question of real time it really doesn't add anything to the discussion here real time traffic jam information means that you're getting information about a traffic jam that is happening in real time that is true and you get bad weather the traffic jam is one that  sudden and unpredictable or that is ordinary on a street or that is in some zone of variability like pennsylvania avenue at five o'clock in the afternoon where the jam might be slow it might be a medium it might be we really don't need all this equipment and all this stuff that's in his claims i'm tempted judge plague or to quote dorothy parker here and say that there was this was not just  this was not terrible this was fancy terrible it was fancy with raisins in it i mean rush hour is always very bad and sometimes it's fancy that and that's the point of a real time system to tell you what is the nature of the traffic jam that you're in but i daresay i dare say your honor that when you're stuck in traffic even if it's every day you don't say oh gee i'm here in a sudden  unpredictable stoppage of traffic but it's not a traffic jam or i'm here and not a non sudden and very predictable stoppage of traffic therefore it's not a traffic jam you're in a traffic jam on th street or on a street whether arsenal experiences or is that not really well i think that i think that you bring to judge and all of the common sense as you started this argument with that you have and that includes your life's experiences but i would add one other thing and that is that the patent here itself says you need all of this for a truly real time system in it and they're saying you don't need to have all of this you only need to have this one category in order to define to determine whether there's a traffic