Opinion ID: 222190
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: NTP's Concessions

Text: NTP made a number of concessions that it may not reargue on remand. These concessions are detailed in NTP's reply brief in the XXXX-XXXX appeal on pages 25 through 29. One of the key concessions revolves around the references' disclosures of the use of TCP/IP. Many of the claims at issue include limitations like an address of the one interface switch added to the originated information at the one of the plurality of originating processors or by the electronic mail system. '960 patent, claim 1. In its opening brief (and before the Board), NTP argued that several references failed to teach this limitation. In its reply brief, NTP conceded that this limitation is taught by Perkins, Verjinski, Cole, and Harrison. XXXX-XXXX Reply Br. 25-29. Specifically, NTP conceded that, in a TCP/IP system, data that are routed through any node necessarily has the address of that node added to it somewhere in the electronic mail system. Id. at 28. NTP also conceded that, in Perkins, the address associated with the processor in the mobile unit is transmitted with the originated information. XXXX-XXXX Reply Br. 25. Regarding Verjinski, NTP conceded that the IP address of the portable host does uniquely identify the processor in the portable host and the RF receiver (phone). Id. at 26. Finally, regarding Telenor, NTP conceded that the address of the User Agent is the same as the identification of the User Agent's wireless device. Id. at 29. This was the opportunity for NTP to appeal these issues. Given that it raised these issues, but then conceded them, NTP is bound by these concessions and may not reargue these points.