Legal Case Summary

PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications

Date Argued: Tue Mar 06 2018
Case Number: 2017-1347
Docket Number: 6325358
Judges:Not available
Duration: 38 minutes
Court Name: Federal Circuit

Case Summary

### Case Summary: PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications **Docket Number:** 6325358 **Court:** [Specify the court, e.g., United States District Court, or state court] **Date:** [Specify the date, if known] #### Background: PPC Broadband, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Corning Optical Communications, alleging issues related to [briefly describe the nature of the dispute, e.g., breach of contract, patent infringement, trademark infringement, etc.]. The case revolves around [provide a brief overview of the context, such as the industry involved, the relationship between the parties, and relevant events leading to the dispute]. #### Parties Involved: - **Plaintiff:** PPC Broadband, Inc. - **Defendant:** Corning Optical Communications #### Claims: PPC Broadband, Inc. alleges that Corning Optical Communications engaged in [specific actions that led to the lawsuit, e.g., unauthorized use of proprietary technology, failure to fulfill contractual obligations]. The plaintiff seeks [outline the demands of the plaintiff, such as damages, injunctions, etc.]. #### Legal Issues: The primary legal issues at stake in this case include: - [Issue 1: e.g., whether Corning Optical’s actions constituted a breach of contract] - [Issue 2: e.g., the enforceability of certain contractual provisions] - [Issue 3: e.g., interpretation of applicable patent law or trademark laws] #### Court Proceedings: [Provide a brief overview of the procedural history, such as motions filed, rulings made, or any key hearings. Mention if the parties attempted settlement or mediation.] #### Current Status: As of [date], the case remains [describe the current status, e.g., pending, decided, awaiting trial, etc.]. The court has [mention any notable rulings or upcoming deadlines]. #### Conclusion: The outcome of PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications could have significant implications for [discuss the relevance of the case in the industry or legal precedent]. Interested parties are advised to monitor developments closely as the case progresses. --- Note: For specific legal details, outcomes, or quotes from legal documents, additional research into the case would be necessary, as key information about the parties’ positions and the court’s rulings may be needed. Please verify the facts with up-to-date legal resources.

PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications


Oral Audio Transcript(Beta version)

no audio transcript available


> round? There could be a gap. There could be slits

. There could be a gap. That could be a slit embodiment. Yes. And so 360 degrees is not really the issue. But we've got you surrounded. What for that door in the back? Like, I doesn't work for me. I don't know. Well, and Sokol is also another word as well, to require something as specific as saying it has to be completely 360 degrees. Like, figure 35, where there clearly are curved depictions. Yes. But he gave a button. Right. Yeah. The young and young. But it doesn't go completely around. Right? Those don't know. And they also are not this particular configuration, which is in the other figures 23 and 26. It's what they sometimes refer to. It looks like a milk can a little bit

. And it actually goes around the outside of the body. And that's what's critical about these claims. This is not contacting between the nut and the post. It goes around the external portion of the body. But now, what is your response to the red briefs argument that, or even if we accept your proposition that it has to encircle, as long as it doesn't have to encircle completely, they've got an argument that even under that construction, at least Tsuzuki would read on that? Well, it doesn't encircle the body, even partially. It contacts the face of it. And the fact that it's a circle doesn't need that encircle the body. It goes three sides. It covers three sides of it, right? No, it just covers the face of it. One side of it. Over the body. I'm looking at the figure of maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like the continuity member is connected to the connector body and the connector body goes around. Oh, I see, that's part of that as the post. That's right. It would go around the post and be adjacent to the face of the body. And this embodiment that's shown in 23 and 26 in those figures, has a sleeve-like configuration, and that's what these claims are directed to. And that's why it says, reside around the external portion of the body, not about the face of it. That's something very different. And so, in the meat, there's not a problem with the board's construction and the immediate vicinity of or near

. That doesn't even require contact. That could be just in the middle of the body. It could be inside, outside, outside. No, it can't be outside because the rest of while in theory, those words could be outside, the rest of the claim language itself expressly requires external body contact. Yes, it does. And external contact, the external body, if you're inside. So, I mean, that's, I don't know, that argument even makes any sense to me. Well, I think that shows that they're inconsistent to... They're not inconsistent. The plain meaning could be in the immediate vicinity of, but then the claim further limits it to only on the outside. So, proportion. You know, and I don't think of reside around, given that it has to contact, can mean that it needs to be somewhere in the vicinity of. There has to be contact. And it's there in the rest of the claim. So, to say reside around means somewhere nearby, it really doesn't..

. I guess you might as well just leave that limitation out, because then it doesn't mean anything. There would be certainly redundant with, somehow, contacting if that's all it's required. I mean, what if we said that the board's interpretation reasonably should be interpreted as saying nearby, but nearby such that it can contact rather than encircle. I think that... That... The portion of it that relates to contact is already in the claim. So, you'll basically be giving no meaning to that, to the term reside around. And it is a distinguishing feature of this particular embodiment, that it actually is on the external portion, and resides around the outside of the body. It is that figure 23 and 26 embodiment, and to read it another way, so that it could contact anywhere on the body, it really doesn't make sense. The word around is used 11 times in the patent, four in the claims and seven in the spec, and apart from the yin-yang embodiment, which, to Jamalie Aschewault, we'll talk about one second again. I don't see anywhere around is used to mean near, in every instance, it's clearly used to be an encircle or surrounding. That's right. It is. But the yin-yang embodiment, the word around is used, but then it says, with the precise language, yin-yang like around, around the yin-yang, the yin-yang fashion or something. That's it

. Is your argument on that, that the yin-yang descriptor modifies it, like if it says, if it were to say, go around a portion of? It could be that partially around. If you look at the figure, if you look at the figure, yin-yang like around. And that's right. You read the figure and try to understand what those words are. You don't think it completely encircles, even though the word around is there, because it's been modified. And it goes partially around. And it's also one of the reasons we say you don't have to completely go around. But there are all the other uses of the word around, which are admittedly in different contexts, you know, talking about the shielding. They are all talking about encircling. And so around generally means... And I found near 13 times, all in the spec, never in the claims. And every time it seemed to mean sort of like adjacent to it. That's right. And I think that's exactly the failing with the board's claim construction. The one problem, and here's where this is sort of fordraftsmanship in terms of the claims, is the word reside also appears. I don't remember the exact number of it. I highlighted that one in blue throughout the claim

. That's correct pattern. Maybe it's eight or nine. But every time it uses the word reside, and I have no doubt you've done the same thing. Every time it uses the word resides, it uses it with near or... That's right. ...or proximate to. And it never uses the word resides when it uses the word around. And that's... It does not. It does not. .

..it's a difficulty for me. That exact syntax is not used in specification. Well, no, it's not just the exact syntax, because resides in near isn't always together. But when it's talking about resides, it usually talks about the approximate location, as opposed to the circumferential location. Yes. And so that's... It's a port that combines those two words, and that's why we're here. I think you're right. And so the word reside on its own, which certainly not mean in circle or so round. Right. You don't reside in... I mean, you reside in wherever, McLean Virginia or something, and that you're not encircling McLean. No. Like you're not

... No, reside. But the two words together, when you add a round, with the emphasis on around... In the context of coaxial cable technology. That's right. And the particular drawings that are shown here, on the external portion of the body. And so here, the spring, the supposed spring of Tazuki, Tazuki, which is going to be inserted into Matthews, it does in circle the external portion of the body. It circles the post, but then it just touches the face of the body. And here again... So perhaps it's domicile. Yes, you're on it. domicile. So again, the board here made no findings that contacting the front face isn't circling or surrounding under arcling construction. They just use their own and found that it was

... Do you want to say the rest of your time for a rebuttal? If I could just briefly talk about actually the lengthwise contact. Here, the board stated the right construction, but didn't apply it. The board's construction is contacting the direction of or along the axis. That's the axial part. It has to have at least some length. Yeah, but they found Tazuki's spring, contacts it more than one point. And you felt them for arguably relying on the depicted drawing, but they said they didn't. Or so, I mean, not backlining. No. You want to end at a weak argument? Well, I think the flaw in the board's argument, as they said, the ring, no matter how thin, would have axial lengthwise contact. That essentially says there can never be point contact. If they say however thin, then that means there is never point contact. So the claim construction that says no point contact is really meaningless. There has to be a way to have a ring that has point contact. And when they say however thin, it shows that they're not actually applying the construction. There's no evidence that an arbitrarily thin ring would not have some lengthwise dimension along the axis. And so the board's findings, they're really in conflict with each other

. For them to say however thin it could still have axial lengthwise contact. Thank you. Mr. Jake, from all turns. I will be brief. With regard to the term reside around the board and the board went to the specification, it could not find a special definition for around. With that. But it went to the dictionary and there were seven different definitions and it picked the seventh one down, even though the first one would support PPCs proposed construction. But all reasonable definitions. And all definitions that- The problem with this, with my view, the problem is the BRI still has an R in it. And it has to be reasonable. It has to be reasonable not just in the context of the world generally, but it has to be reasonable in the context of this patent and what is claimed and what the specification describes. Yes. So is there anything where there's just- where it's just hanging out there and there isn't contact or it isn't encircled to some extent that you can point to me in the specification? So if you- if you do look at the specification, you will see a number of embodiments where the continuity number is not sleeve-like. Is not sleeve-like. That's what they want. There are 53 figures and I don't know in excess of 20 different embodiments. Your argument can't possibly be that every claim must cover every embodiment. Right here it would be physically impossible because of the different designs. So your argument can't possibly be that every claim must cover every embodiment. Is it- is that your argument? That- If you make a lot of arguments that sound like that in your brief about how it would be wrong to read preferred embodiments out of this claim, that's what you actually say verbatim in your brief in several places. And that struck me as very strange in a situation where there are 25 claims more than 20 disclosed embodiments. Meaning where there are reasonable definitions that you can choose from. It would be inappropriate to read out of the claim and embodiment where you're using a reasonable definition for the term around. In fact, their own use- Is- is your claim construction canon because I've never actually heard this one before, but maybe it makes sense. Is your canon whenever there's more than one definition, the one that covers the most number of embodiments should be selected? I think in- in this particular case, yes, because it clearly was not excluded through the use of a round. They could have used so round. Even though in many of those figures you pointed to, like figure five, which would be excluded, it would be excluded anyway because of other limitations. For example, there the contact was with the inside of the body member and not the outside. Or how about the embodiments where the contact is actually its- its located- the continuity number resides between the post and the nut, so it's not even with the external body. I mean, a lot of those embodiments are read out of claim ten. Cannot possibly be covered by claim ten because of other limitations within claim ten. So why should I necessarily then create a construction of one word within claim ten that would cover a portion of that embodiment even though that embodiment can't be covered by claim ten because of other elements? So if there are other features of a claim, limitations that would clearly exclude an embodiment under a reasonable- broadest reasonable construction, certainly those other embodiments would not fall within the scope of the claim. And I shouldn't strain to find a reasonable construction that would necessarily cover them because it be one element when they're clearly not contemplated as being covered by that claim because there are other elements which unquestionably they fail. Is that a reasonable way to think about it? One more time with the question. I'm not sure I'm following the question. Suppose there are two reasonable interpretations. Yes

. So your argument can't possibly be that every claim must cover every embodiment. Is it- is that your argument? That- If you make a lot of arguments that sound like that in your brief about how it would be wrong to read preferred embodiments out of this claim, that's what you actually say verbatim in your brief in several places. And that struck me as very strange in a situation where there are 25 claims more than 20 disclosed embodiments. Meaning where there are reasonable definitions that you can choose from. It would be inappropriate to read out of the claim and embodiment where you're using a reasonable definition for the term around. In fact, their own use- Is- is your claim construction canon because I've never actually heard this one before, but maybe it makes sense. Is your canon whenever there's more than one definition, the one that covers the most number of embodiments should be selected? I think in- in this particular case, yes, because it clearly was not excluded through the use of a round. They could have used so round. Even though in many of those figures you pointed to, like figure five, which would be excluded, it would be excluded anyway because of other limitations. For example, there the contact was with the inside of the body member and not the outside. Or how about the embodiments where the contact is actually its- its located- the continuity number resides between the post and the nut, so it's not even with the external body. I mean, a lot of those embodiments are read out of claim ten. Cannot possibly be covered by claim ten because of other limitations within claim ten. So why should I necessarily then create a construction of one word within claim ten that would cover a portion of that embodiment even though that embodiment can't be covered by claim ten because of other elements? So if there are other features of a claim, limitations that would clearly exclude an embodiment under a reasonable- broadest reasonable construction, certainly those other embodiments would not fall within the scope of the claim. And I shouldn't strain to find a reasonable construction that would necessarily cover them because it be one element when they're clearly not contemplated as being covered by that claim because there are other elements which unquestionably they fail. Is that a reasonable way to think about it? One more time with the question. I'm not sure I'm following the question. Suppose there are two reasonable interpretations. Yes. Suppose there are two reasonable ones. One is broad, one is narrower. I shouldn't necessarily choose the broader one solely because it covers more embodiments- vis-a-vis that particular element when it's clear that those embodiments are not meant to be covered by that claim because of the other elements. I shouldn't strain to choose a broader one just because on that construction one of the elements of an embodiment would be included when the claim clearly doesn't contemplate covering that embodiment. I'm struggling a little bit with the question. If there are limitations in the claim that would exclude an embodiment, you clearly should not construe the claim to encompass that embodiment. Not only that, I shouldn't worry about the terms in the claim and be reading them with an eye towards whether that term would include that portion of that embodiment, right? That embodiment is now off the table. If it's clear that that embodiment is not contemplated as being covered by claim 10, then I don't really need to pay attention to that embodiment when construing the language of claim 10, do I? I think you do. I think you have to look at the use of different terms to define different configurations and relationships between here, the continuity member and the body. I think that is... The other spots is probably that you begin with a presumption that the same term used in different claims means the same thing. It's obviously a presumption that can be overcome, but I assume that's your point. That's absolutely one of the other things that the language can inform. And that can inform, absolutely. Yes, absolutely. So there are 11 uses of a round in this specification and every one of them implies surrounding or encircling and with the exception of the one use of a round which speaks to figure 35. But why isn't Mr

. Suppose there are two reasonable ones. One is broad, one is narrower. I shouldn't necessarily choose the broader one solely because it covers more embodiments- vis-a-vis that particular element when it's clear that those embodiments are not meant to be covered by that claim because of the other elements. I shouldn't strain to choose a broader one just because on that construction one of the elements of an embodiment would be included when the claim clearly doesn't contemplate covering that embodiment. I'm struggling a little bit with the question. If there are limitations in the claim that would exclude an embodiment, you clearly should not construe the claim to encompass that embodiment. Not only that, I shouldn't worry about the terms in the claim and be reading them with an eye towards whether that term would include that portion of that embodiment, right? That embodiment is now off the table. If it's clear that that embodiment is not contemplated as being covered by claim 10, then I don't really need to pay attention to that embodiment when construing the language of claim 10, do I? I think you do. I think you have to look at the use of different terms to define different configurations and relationships between here, the continuity member and the body. I think that is... The other spots is probably that you begin with a presumption that the same term used in different claims means the same thing. It's obviously a presumption that can be overcome, but I assume that's your point. That's absolutely one of the other things that the language can inform. And that can inform, absolutely. Yes, absolutely. So there are 11 uses of a round in this specification and every one of them implies surrounding or encircling and with the exception of the one use of a round which speaks to figure 35. But why isn't Mr. Jake's right that when it says around in a yin yang-like fashion that it's like saying partially around? Partially around, if the word around does mean, if one of its definitions is surround, you can certainly say partially around implying partially surrounding. So if you look at that figure, figure 35, and we have this on page 25 of our brief, that figure shows that those spring members are actually outside of a plane of the base portion of the continuity member there. So even under their definition, it's not encircling or sleeve-like or surrounding. It's outside of the plane. It's not only not completely around. It's not even in the same plane. Well, that might, would that possibly suggest that claim 35 is not covered? I mean, figure 35 is not one of the embodiments that is covered by claim 10. Is that what you're asking? I'm not sure that figure 35 was used to show an embodiment that had to be covered or not. I think the purpose of using figure 35 was to show that even PPC and their specification didn't limit the definition of the term around to something that had to be sleeve-like. Those spring members that they say... They didn't ask for a definition of sleeve-like. They asked for a definition of surround or encircle. They mentioned sleeve-like here today. They may sleeve-like embodiments in the patent and say, for example, those. But I don't understand Mr. Jake's to be narrowing his definition from encircle to sleeve-like. But even in circle, these flexible rings portions are not in the same plane encircling in the way that they would like the claim interpret it

. Jake's right that when it says around in a yin yang-like fashion that it's like saying partially around? Partially around, if the word around does mean, if one of its definitions is surround, you can certainly say partially around implying partially surrounding. So if you look at that figure, figure 35, and we have this on page 25 of our brief, that figure shows that those spring members are actually outside of a plane of the base portion of the continuity member there. So even under their definition, it's not encircling or sleeve-like or surrounding. It's outside of the plane. It's not only not completely around. It's not even in the same plane. Well, that might, would that possibly suggest that claim 35 is not covered? I mean, figure 35 is not one of the embodiments that is covered by claim 10. Is that what you're asking? I'm not sure that figure 35 was used to show an embodiment that had to be covered or not. I think the purpose of using figure 35 was to show that even PPC and their specification didn't limit the definition of the term around to something that had to be sleeve-like. Those spring members that they say... They didn't ask for a definition of sleeve-like. They asked for a definition of surround or encircle. They mentioned sleeve-like here today. They may sleeve-like embodiments in the patent and say, for example, those. But I don't understand Mr. Jake's to be narrowing his definition from encircle to sleeve-like. But even in circle, these flexible rings portions are not in the same plane encircling in the way that they would like the claim interpret it. Whether it be surrounding or encircling. I don't remember a planar limitation either. Do you? I mean... I think that's what they're saying. If you look at a cylinder laying flat, I think they're saying that encircling has to touch the horizontal surfaces of the circle and not just the vertical surfaces of the circle. If these arms were extended, they would absolutely encircle it. It's just that they would do so at an angle. I could... Okay, look, I could encircle a cylinder like this. I can also encircle a cylinder like this. So if that... I've never played that little ring-toss game with your kids or horseshoes for a drill. Like sometimes the horseshoes is at an angle

. Whether it be surrounding or encircling. I don't remember a planar limitation either. Do you? I mean... I think that's what they're saying. If you look at a cylinder laying flat, I think they're saying that encircling has to touch the horizontal surfaces of the circle and not just the vertical surfaces of the circle. If these arms were extended, they would absolutely encircle it. It's just that they would do so at an angle. I could... Okay, look, I could encircle a cylinder like this. I can also encircle a cylinder like this. So if that... I've never played that little ring-toss game with your kids or horseshoes for a drill. Like sometimes the horseshoes is at an angle. It's still encircling the post. Well, technically not because it's shaped. But you understand the point. Yes, yes. So if that is the construction, then just putting the continuity member on the end of the body would meet their definition. If that's what they're saying. Because it would be encircling in the same way that it's not in the same plane. I don't understand. If it's off the end of the body, how is it encircling the body? The spring members that are referred to here as being around the continuity member are not in the same plane as the base portion of the continuity member. That's the purpose of that argument. It's to show that a round is not limited to surrounding or encircling. Because here where they talk about the spring members being around, they don't encircle or surround the base portion of the continuity member. Say they do it in a yin-yang-like fashion. So that's a modification of the word around, isn't it? I'm making something. You can say partially around, can't you? And that modifies the standard definition around. So why can't you say around in a yin-yang-like fashion similarly modify the definition of around? If those spring members are around, then that would be no different than putting the continuity member on the face, the front face of the body. Because those spring members are not in the same plane or encircling or surrounding the base portion of the continuity member. But that still wouldn't be the same as having it just nearby, right? That's right. But our point is around is not limited to surround or encircle or sleeve-like

. It's still encircling the post. Well, technically not because it's shaped. But you understand the point. Yes, yes. So if that is the construction, then just putting the continuity member on the end of the body would meet their definition. If that's what they're saying. Because it would be encircling in the same way that it's not in the same plane. I don't understand. If it's off the end of the body, how is it encircling the body? The spring members that are referred to here as being around the continuity member are not in the same plane as the base portion of the continuity member. That's the purpose of that argument. It's to show that a round is not limited to surrounding or encircling. Because here where they talk about the spring members being around, they don't encircle or surround the base portion of the continuity member. Say they do it in a yin-yang-like fashion. So that's a modification of the word around, isn't it? I'm making something. You can say partially around, can't you? And that modifies the standard definition around. So why can't you say around in a yin-yang-like fashion similarly modify the definition of around? If those spring members are around, then that would be no different than putting the continuity member on the face, the front face of the body. Because those spring members are not in the same plane or encircling or surrounding the base portion of the continuity member. But that still wouldn't be the same as having it just nearby, right? That's right. But our point is around is not limited to surround or encircle or sleeve-like. That's been our point all along. That the definition is broader and they use it in a broader context and their specification. What about the fact that the board relied on language from the preamble to basically for a claim differentiation analysis without having made any conclusions as to whether the preamble limited the claim? I think what the board was saying was that their construction is consistent with the terms that are used in the claim. Meaning that having a broader definition of around is appropriate because when PPC wants something to surround another object, they say so. Well, that's an after the fact effort to try to save what the board did, isn't it? I mean, that's not what the board said. I think that's what they were getting at when they referenced the terms surround, which appears in the claims which are under appeal, that their construction is consistent with- They weren't referencing the word surround in any other claim. They were referencing it in the preamble of the claim they were looking at, which is a problem when they didn't find that that preamble was limiting in any way. I don't think that's a problem at all for them to still use that as evidence that they meant something different when they use the term around. Now, isn't there a sort of general rule that the elements of the claim are consistent with? In fact, the preamble? I mean, isn't there some general rule of law that suggests that? Maybe there should be if there isn't, because I guess the point I'm making is when you're talking about the preamble, which if nothing else sets out the purpose of the invention. And if they use a different word in the preamble than the body, in fact, if anything, I would think we would, unlike normal statutory construction, if it's all part of the statute, or normal claim construction, if it's an alternative element, the point of the body is to give life and meaning, right? The preamble, the whole thing. So you would think that if anything, we should construe the different words consistently, because the preamble is the purpose for everything that comes after. I think the general rule is if there are different terms in the body of the claim, you should interpret those terms differently. I agree. Right. How long this is in the body? This is the preamble, and the whole point of the preamble is to give meaning to the actual stuff that comes after. Understood. The terms surround, unlike in the case that PPC sites in their brief, the cementite case, unlike that case, where the court found that they didn't want to give different meanings to words in the preamble because it would be the same thing. So the surrounding is the same thing. So the surrounding is the same thing

. That's been our point all along. That the definition is broader and they use it in a broader context and their specification. What about the fact that the board relied on language from the preamble to basically for a claim differentiation analysis without having made any conclusions as to whether the preamble limited the claim? I think what the board was saying was that their construction is consistent with the terms that are used in the claim. Meaning that having a broader definition of around is appropriate because when PPC wants something to surround another object, they say so. Well, that's an after the fact effort to try to save what the board did, isn't it? I mean, that's not what the board said. I think that's what they were getting at when they referenced the terms surround, which appears in the claims which are under appeal, that their construction is consistent with- They weren't referencing the word surround in any other claim. They were referencing it in the preamble of the claim they were looking at, which is a problem when they didn't find that that preamble was limiting in any way. I don't think that's a problem at all for them to still use that as evidence that they meant something different when they use the term around. Now, isn't there a sort of general rule that the elements of the claim are consistent with? In fact, the preamble? I mean, isn't there some general rule of law that suggests that? Maybe there should be if there isn't, because I guess the point I'm making is when you're talking about the preamble, which if nothing else sets out the purpose of the invention. And if they use a different word in the preamble than the body, in fact, if anything, I would think we would, unlike normal statutory construction, if it's all part of the statute, or normal claim construction, if it's an alternative element, the point of the body is to give life and meaning, right? The preamble, the whole thing. So you would think that if anything, we should construe the different words consistently, because the preamble is the purpose for everything that comes after. I think the general rule is if there are different terms in the body of the claim, you should interpret those terms differently. I agree. Right. How long this is in the body? This is the preamble, and the whole point of the preamble is to give meaning to the actual stuff that comes after. Understood. The terms surround, unlike in the case that PPC sites in their brief, the cementite case, unlike that case, where the court found that they didn't want to give different meanings to words in the preamble because it would be the same thing. So the surrounding is the same thing. So the surrounding is the same thing. So the surrounding is the same thing. So the surrounding is the same thing. So the surrounding is the same thing. So the surrounding is the same thing. So the surrounding is the same thing. Yes. But they are actually using the word surround to talk about whole different components, the dielectric, the copper, the whatever. Did the board make that finding? Did the board make that finding? I don't know that the board specifically made a finding on that, but it's clear from the claim itself what surround is modified. Well, when Mr. Jakes stood up, the first place where he started is something that I think that you ought to address, which is that how can you have the definition of near or in the vicinity of when this claim requires actual contact and external portion of the connector? Now, don't bother with the internal external thing, but just because I don't buy into that, because the claim expressly says external. So the fact that near could be bigger than just external is modified by the other language of the claim. But what about contact? Just got to mean, got to have contact, I mean, electrically contact. So there has to be contact. Doesn't that really preclude almost all of near? So if you're looking at terms in a claim and we're looking at the term just around, we want to give that a reasonable definition. If there are some other terms in the claim that require the connection that you're talking about, we look at those terms to require that connection. Here, it's not excluding. It's the same term. It's the same term. Continuity member positioned to electrically contact the nut and positioned to reside around an external portion of the connector body

. So the surrounding is the same thing. So the surrounding is the same thing. So the surrounding is the same thing. So the surrounding is the same thing. So the surrounding is the same thing. Yes. But they are actually using the word surround to talk about whole different components, the dielectric, the copper, the whatever. Did the board make that finding? Did the board make that finding? I don't know that the board specifically made a finding on that, but it's clear from the claim itself what surround is modified. Well, when Mr. Jakes stood up, the first place where he started is something that I think that you ought to address, which is that how can you have the definition of near or in the vicinity of when this claim requires actual contact and external portion of the connector? Now, don't bother with the internal external thing, but just because I don't buy into that, because the claim expressly says external. So the fact that near could be bigger than just external is modified by the other language of the claim. But what about contact? Just got to mean, got to have contact, I mean, electrically contact. So there has to be contact. Doesn't that really preclude almost all of near? So if you're looking at terms in a claim and we're looking at the term just around, we want to give that a reasonable definition. If there are some other terms in the claim that require the connection that you're talking about, we look at those terms to require that connection. Here, it's not excluding. It's the same term. It's the same term. Continuity member positioned to electrically contact the nut and positioned to reside around an external portion of the connector body. So how can you... May I make a couple of quick points? The end has meaning. The end has meaning. That's the... That's the... That's your point. Okay, go ahead. What quick points do you want to make because we're out of time? Much like the combined appeal, here, PPC has not explained why even under their construction, the embodiments that Dr. Murakowski said were obvious and that the board found were obvious because there was motivation to put the Tatsuzuki spring member into the claim. To the Matthews device and the ways that are described in those embodiments, why that would not meet its claim limitations as well. And if you look at page 31 of Horning's brief and the annotated excerpt of Exhibit 20 2007, you will see that drawing and what that's depicting is if you think of a cylinder and you put a washer on it on the end of a cylinder, that that washer will reside around or encircle the inside part or portion of the body. PPC can't explain why that doesn't meet the claim limitations even under their construction. My last point, very quickly, axial length

. So how can you... May I make a couple of quick points? The end has meaning. The end has meaning. That's the... That's the... That's your point. Okay, go ahead. What quick points do you want to make because we're out of time? Much like the combined appeal, here, PPC has not explained why even under their construction, the embodiments that Dr. Murakowski said were obvious and that the board found were obvious because there was motivation to put the Tatsuzuki spring member into the claim. To the Matthews device and the ways that are described in those embodiments, why that would not meet its claim limitations as well. And if you look at page 31 of Horning's brief and the annotated excerpt of Exhibit 20 2007, you will see that drawing and what that's depicting is if you think of a cylinder and you put a washer on it on the end of a cylinder, that that washer will reside around or encircle the inside part or portion of the body. PPC can't explain why that doesn't meet the claim limitations even under their construction. My last point, very quickly, axial length. PPC themselves show in figure 16 and embodiment that they describe as a continuity member that the only portion of that continuity member that touches the post is the inner radial edge. And that continuity member is shown on page 34 of Horning's brief. And in column 14 of the patent, it is explicitly explained that that contact on the inner radial edge is the only contact that provides the continuity for that device. And Mr. Walters, I think we have your argument. Thank you. We need to give Mr. Jax a little time. How much does that always have to do with it? If it will please the panel, I don't have anything to add unless there are questions. Well, how do you respond to the fact that if you look at figure 35, it's not actually encircling that it's connected to the end of and then on a different plane. It may have a circular feel to it, but it doesn't actually encircle any. Well, if you look at the fact that the word around is in all the other contexts means encircle. You've got this one example where it refers to a pseudo coaxially curved arm in a yin-leng-leng-like fashion around the continuity member. I think you have to take all that into account looking at the figure and what it's describing. So around there means partially around and it may not be in the same plane, but it can encircle the post or the continuity member. At least important. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jax

. The cases that take you to the next slide