agreed it is a means plus function element the examiner during the rig's am nation proceedings correctly identified the corresponding algorithm for that limitation is that three step procedure in figure five of the a corresponding algorithm is nothing more than a mobile station or cell phone sinning a message sending a simple message to the original base station to reactivate the link and there are two reasons that like to focus on for a why the board's algorithm is incorrect st that simple message algorithm is not an alternative algorithm in the specification rather it is describing figures four to six which which describe the reactivation in more detail and it's that statement that the board is relying on is part of the algorithm that shown in those figures the  arrangement that the claim was directed to a mobil station in that mobil station comprises that arrangement that set forth in that home so something that's performed for example by the base station wouldn't fall within the arrangement because the arrangement is only within the mobil station that is correct your honour's be the algorithm involves the mobil station specifically both sinning and receiving messages so the three steps are st the base state and the mobil station receiving a rejection message that said by the target base station and then sending a message back to the original base station to maintain the link and then this the mobile station then receiving a message acknowledgement message from that original base station that reestablishes the lake so that the word relies on a statement in the simple message your honor the context is the key here that senates immediately follows a senate that reads figures four to six relate to a method for handing over to an m mobile station can reactivate the link that senates cannot logically be read as describing an alternative algorithm as h t c maintains rather it the only logical way to read that sentence is describing what is shown in those figures figures four dollars to six dollars that it's referring to and in the those figures specifically figure five is the only example in the specification of an unsuccessful handover all about reactivation of the original link in reading that in context the simple message that statement referring to is referring to a message for eight and that algorithm which is a message a simple message from the mobil station back to the original base station that it wants to maintain that link but the algorithm doesn't stop there it also involves an acknowledgement message back from the original base station so that's the that's the natural reading of the specification and how a person of ordinary skill in the art would read it and there's expert testimony on this point explaining that understanding of a person of ordinary skill and that expert testimony is one sided here ip cops expert timony it was rather conclusory it didn't really provide any kind of reasoning rationale or explanation for why the expert reached the conclusion that she proclaimed and so that's one problem the nd problem is that this exercise of trying to identify what the corresponding structure is for means plus function imitation as i understand it is a legal question it's a question for the court the exercise of trying to match up different pieces of the intrinsic evidence plus function i believe that's a legal question and so therefore we're not going to be giving deference to any kind of expert so that's problem number two so in the end i don't think you have very much juice out of your expert declaration so in the end it comes down to more of an exercise of trying to understand what is it about this simple declarative statement column that is overrun by anything else that's going on their cited function and then it in paragraph eighteen he provides his opinion having looked at the patent identifying what he believes to be the corresponding algorithm he is in middle of does not grapple with this question about column five algorithm applause instead read that this is a legal exercise that we're undertaking here yes your argument isn't legal exercise although the supreme court's to have a decision recognizes that it can include underlying factual questions about how personal ordinary skill expert testimony on what a corresponding structure is in a specification so but i don't want to put too much emphasis the focus really should be on the intrinsic evidence as you noted and that's the st and foremost in the claim insufficient structure it alone in the context of this claim doesn't cannot fully perform the function and the reason for that is that the claim in the element immediately preceding the arrangement for reactivating  time or element so in this network environment there are two base stations a st and nd base station when this when the cell phone attempts to handover the time are set in that original base station and that mobile station cannot get back to reactivate the link so here where there is a mobil station that sends a message that it wants to return as described in figure in the column six it doesn't know whether that message seven tour de refer to the same concept or setting up the old link again sometimes is used also during prosecution there were as you noted there were claims that used reactivating claims that use reestablishing ication with regard to this feature of a mobile station being able to return to a st space station if the handover to a nd base station is unsuccessful and my counsel for ip com has pointed to call  life lines ten through twelve and judge chen already read that into the record but something similar is also described to get in column seven of the patent at lines fifty to fifty two dollars where it says if the search for a new base station is unsuccessful the mobile station reregister is at its old base station and keeps its previous settings there are two there is no discussion of an acknowledgement message registers as little a register as could the old base station so reregister it's not so clear to me is answer the question in the same way that the sentencing code find does so i've looked at the specification your honor for that point and when it talks about registering in terms of what the base excuse me what the mobile station does there's no indication that there needs to be or is a response from the base station back to the mobile station as used in the specification that term seems to refer to the mobile station sending a message to the base station to establish a connection i do agree that there could be an acknowledgement message back but just the word register and reregister is to some specification i think the more reasonable reading is that the mobile station just sends a message network supported handover when registering at the new base station the mobile station itself is responsible for ensuring that all and parameter settings and link settings are modified there's also a reference to registering in that same column if i can find it oh yes i'm sorry it's line thirty nine at the mobil station registers and over at the l b station which then performs the search for suitable new base station i don't think that those passages necessarily are dispositive your honor but what i do think is that they show that and reasonable interpretation standard applies why do you think that that matters in a case where you're looking for corresponding structure in a specification is there abroad is reasonable construction of the corresponding structure  do we take that standard into account your honor i do believe that that is relevant because this specification is not a paragon of clarity necessarily but if we look at some of the plain statements including what is in column five it lines ten through twelve well just to follow up on judge sauls question yes your honor are you aware of an opinion from this court that when it comes to identifying what is the corresponding structure for a given means put function limitation you should specification with the broadest reasonable interpretation of mind i'm not there were of any specific opinion that i could cite to the court i think that our briefing does refer to a few instances where if there is alternative corresponding structure that's disc reconciled with column six to be all referring to the same thing or should we understand what's being discussed in common five as being yet a different bottom and then what is disclosed in column s and so with that ambiguity potentially one could use the broadest reasonable interpretation say well that's less than clear but i suppose it's reasonable to say that there are two embodiments because that would be the broader way of understanding what is corresponding scriptures for this means plus function limitation but i don't know if this court has ever used to be are i in that particular matter and as far as i'm hearing from you i don't think you know either that's correct  don't have a case that i could cite to you today so your case is read read don't speak to that's that's correct you're ok i what i will say is in terms of the intrinsic record if we look at column five and column six together i agree with my colleague that context is important what is described in column five the fact that if there is an unsuccessful handover the mobile station can return by sending a simple excuse me can reactivate the link by sending a simple message that is inconsistent with each of figures forty five and six figure four describes a successful handover not one in which a link is reactivated figure five is about reestablishing a link when the base station gives permission  here starting at line thirty seven there's a message they get sent to the st base station indicating that the mobile station wants to maintain the link i desire to maintain the link and then it's up to the base station will acknowledge that and allow the reestablishment to me that the meaning of that and the description in the specification is different than in column five where it's the mobil station who sends one simple message to the knowledge of any message is critical for the mobile stations ability to start transmitting data back to the old base dushan because the mobile station doesn't know if the station the two just begin sending data back and forth there's not a formal acknowledgement message so that's not something that's required in the mobile station will know that the reestablishment of the reactivation has occurred because the data communication continues between the data based so to in response to that i would point back to the portions of the specification that don't say anything about an acknowledgement message again we have column five it lines ten through twelve columns seven at lines fifty through fifty two and one word with respect to the difference between reactivation and reestablishment when the mobile station reactivates the link it's made merely taking a channel that was dormant that was not use and it sends a message across that channel when that message gets sent it is active because there's data that's been sent across it it doesn't matter if the base station has acknowledged that necessarily because the link is already reactivated it could be rejected later but that's what suggested by the word reactivated as opposed to the word reestablish which requires the base station to give permission construction that ip com had identified he disagreed with it because what he did do was to evaluate the prior art in light of that three step construction for the corresponding structure and also in light of ip comms infringement contentions in some corresponding district court litigation they have a record cite for where he disagreed oh yes your honor i do so if you go to a twelve thousand seven hundred and seventy eight and in also on the previous pages where dr cuts and describes how he's approaching  corresponding structure in terms of looking at the infringement contentions and the corresponding litigation one other point now that i want to make not your honour's that i want to make sure that i get to is there was made mention in the briefs that c had not identified in the prior art did not disclose any specific acknowledgement message that went back from the base station to the mobil station if you look at the corresponding structure that ip com has proposed the rd st requires and i'm reading this from the grave refund page five receiving a message from the st space station what h t c has pointed to in the record is that in the prior art there is no specific acknowledgement message but there is a resumption of communication and other words the base station sends data packets sends messages over to the mobile station when the communications resume under ip comms own infringement contentions in the district court litigation that is reactivation that's the same thing that ip come pointed to as acknowledgement message and besides that i'll just give one example to the court of the pax reference court's appendix thirteen thousand nine hundred and seventy six the paks reference talks about subscriber unit a mobile station they goes from one radio port a nd radio port it's transferred that's the handover if that transfer is unsuccessful or denied as described at the very bottom of appendix thirteen thousand nine hundred and seventy six it says  subscriber unit will resume the conversation on the old link and return to the a l t permitted state turned back a couple of pages to appendix thirteen thousand nine hundred and seventy four and this flow diagram shows a subscriber unit in the mail to be permitted state there's a description at the top of the page that the subscriber unit is to new to the old base station it isn't already gone back after an unsuccessful handover attempt and there are two messages that are identified in this flow diagram that the st base station sends to the subscriber unit specific messages after it has returned there is the ail t underscore effects e c u message and the perform underscore t s t message so there are specific messages in the prior art that are sent from the st base station back to the mobile station if a handover is unsuccessful and that is what we would point out to the district or excuse me to the board if the court were to agree with ip counts construction and remain unless the court has any further questions i'm happy to stand on each the supreme thank you thank you history you still have a little bit of time left sir the specification here has only one reactivation algorithm it's shown in figure five it's the three steps described in the specification so under the broader phrase one interpretation is the  station to the mobile station does that make it so they can or argument with respect to what the arrangement includes if it goes too far and it's under claimed following my argument is are you for it to the arrange my mercenary to the arrangement language that was added during the amendment the language that was added to the claim just above the arrangement language during the amendment process that  additional language is is a is relating to a forced handover so there's an arrangement for for sending a force to handover message to the mobile station forcing that mobile station to search for a new base station and and the handover query i don't believe that that affects the interpretation of the reactivating so that doesn't apply to the situation where the nd base station says specifically to that forced handover situation whereas claim one may be a broader than that it may apply to additional situations but i don't believe that the difference between those claims affects the interpretation of the arrangement for activating that you're