The next case is Secure web conference cooperation versus Microsoft 2015-13-21 is it Mr. Helga? Helga, you're honor, help you this one Hey, please the court We are here because the district court Construed four terms in two related patents at issue to include limitations that are not supported by the specification And in fact, run contrary to the express disclosure of the specifications of these patents in suit. Three of these terms refer to the term device. We have security device, we have network communication device, we have input output device. The court incorrectly construed each of those devices to be standalone, external to, and separate from other devices. Again, contrary to the express disclosure of the specification. The fourth term is point to point communication session, and some claims that they throw in electronics as well, electronics communication session. They're the district court incorporated a negative limitation based on a specification that uses the term i.e. with reference to nonpoint to point communications without actually dealing with what is expressly disclosed about point to point communication session. That negative limitation is also not supported by the specification. You're on this, I'll speak first about the device terms in general. Microsoft claims that you cannot take the device term out of the claims from which it's being construed. And that argument is incorrect. In fact, at the court below, they provided definitions of device
. And indeed, the district court used that term device as its foundation for construing the device terms as separate standalone and external. It didn't rely on the adjectives occurring before device. It didn't look to security, for example, as the basis for construing these as separate from external to or standalone. In addition, if you were to look at the 687 patterns, which are both related, they consistently use a term device in context in which one device may be a component of another device. They don't have to be standalone. So for example, in figure two of the 686 pattern and also figure two of the 687 pattern, we have a depiction of the security devices of each pattern. Within those devices, we have in the 686 pattern, we have an encryption decryption device, 130, contained within security device. Similarly, in the 687 pattern, we have ports or connections for input output data, for example, we have ports being referred to as device. We have claim one of the 687 pattern, which recites a claim to a device comprising other devices. Where did the district court go wrong? The district court went wrong by assuming the ultimate conclusion that because one device is recited differently from the claim in another device, they somehow couldn't be embedded. But now these are electronics patterns. What about claim 29 of the 687 pattern? It talks about selecting a configuration. It talks about that configuration being dependent upon the presence of a network communication device and an input output device in which there's a plurality of communication ports. Why doesn't that imply transients as the court found, which then in turn implies separateness? You honor, if you look at the district court's opinion on that point, it really focused on only part of the language of that claim
. You're right, it is dependent upon the presence of a network communication device and an input output device. The rest of the language is in communication with, said, selected ports. We're not just looking at existence, presence. We're looking at presence in communication. Now, it's true that it is possible to be transients. It is possible that there are devices that could be disconnected or reconnected, for example, but it doesn't preclude the possibility that there could be constant existence and simply not in communication. So we have to look beyond simply the presence, but we have to look at the presence in communication. You're saying when it says dependent on presence that could be broad enough to include ever presence? Absolutely, Ronner. Absolutely. And I think it covers both situations. Now, so you would always have one configuration, you wouldn't actually select a configuration. It would always just be one. There could be a default, you honor. There could be a default configuration when there is one device that is always present and is available for being in connection with the port
. But I believe you have to look at the entire phrase, and it's not simply presence, but it's presence in communication. And this is consistent with the 687 patents discussion of the term device where it doesn't require separateness. It doesn't require housing. Again, this is electronics patent. We're not talking about it. I agree with you, the device is pretty broad, and it doesn't require separateness that word alone. But I don't understand how in communication changes when you have to have selecting a configuration dependent upon the presence, how that would include just being always present. Again, you're on. I think it comes down to the presence in communication with. So for example, you may have a hierarchy where you say the device is going through a selection process, and it wants to go with a first port, and it checks whether there's a connection there. And if there is not a device there, then it moves to the next port. And if there's a device there, but there's no communication, for example, it's not turned on, or it may be something that has to be activated. Then you go to the third. And now this is shown in figure 6, to some extent, with respect to the algorithm that the device is going to go through
. But it simply doesn't look for presence, but it's presence in communication with. And I think we have to look at both of those elements. And the district court looked only at presence, and it stopped after that. And so it missed the in communication portion. We're going to, in the 686 patent, we also have figure 1. Now, NBO Labs, a case from this court, has said that the invention doesn't necessarily need to look like the figures. And we have figure 1 talking about a computer, a phone, and a fact-similar machine, and then a security device. Now, where did the separate standalone and external phrases come from? It really came from Microsoft's characterization of this figure. In effect, the district court elevated the value of Microsoft's characterizations beyond what is actually disclosed in the patent. The patent says that FOX 50 is a first location. We know that the computer, the faxal machine, and the telephone, and this security device aren't the same location. That is what the patent says about physicalness or geography of this arrangement. Now, what is more epitome of same location than one device embedded into another? Again, these are electronics patents. And the arrangement of the housing is really, really arbitrary
. And you won't see, for example, you won't see the prosecution history in the joint appendix. In fact, neither party relied upon it because there isn't any sort of discussion of physical arrangement that leads to these patents being issued. A couple of times in the specification, there's a reference, for example, at column 11, lines of roughly 12 through 15 to the advantage of the invention in that the security device being separate from the computer allows the encryption to be preserved even if the computer is lost or stolen. That suggests, to me, at least, separateness of the two. You're on this actually leads us very well into the second term, which is the point to point communication session, because what we're talking about here in column 11, specifically at line 6, is we're talking about the separateness in the context of the permanent key. And that permanent key gets us to the nonpoint to point communication session phrase, which is contrary to the point to point. This claim is directed to point to point, which the patent makes clear is different from nonpoint to point. Well, let me return you, if I could, to what's really troubling me about this passage, which is that it sounds as if it's saying one of the advantages of this invention is that you're not going to be exposed to having your encryption system keys or whatever compromised by the loss of your computer, as you would, for example, if you had the encryption and the microprocessor, the encryption, well, the security device and the microprocessor and the based device both in the same single entity, as in a cell phone, let's say. Why isn't that pretty good support for the proposition that they're separate? Well, you're right. It's certainly a proposition that they could be separate. But it certainly doesn't. But why isn't that? I mean, this is speaking about the advantage of the invention, not as far as I can see, specific to a limited environment. Why isn't that something that is a benefit of the invention at all? Well, we're on our again. This is very specific to the non-point to point context in line
. Since we were talking about a permanent key, for point to point, you're going to have a new key for every session. And so the same concern for losing your computer or having your computer and security device taken and having that key out there for the world to use is not a concern necessarily in the point to point because that new key is being generated every time we create a session. That's exactly the issue here with the non-point to point versus point to point. When you refer to a session here, are you talking, what do you mean by session? Because I mean that word is used somewhat differently in different settings. I want to know what you think the use of the term is in the context of this pattern. You're on in the context of this pattern session and the idea of point to point versus non-point to point sessions deals with timing of transmission and receive. Well, okay, but what's a session if you and I are having an exchange and we have an exchange now which goes back and forth between us, we pause, we stop that event and an hour later we have another exchange. How many sessions have we had? We go on if there's a pause or for example if I put data out there and then I leave the room and we wait for you to retrieve that data that would be non-point to point because there isn't a real time exchange of conversation. Anytime you and I are right. I'm really trying to get the word session in my mind as to what this pattern means when it uses that term. I send you a message. Is that a complete session? It depends if whether I've received a message. I send it, you receive it. That would be a session
. And then you send a message back to me. Is that a second session? If the devices haven't, well in the context of this pattern, if the devices haven't had to reestablish some connection to each other, then that would be part of the same session. But for example, if I come up here and I say, may it please the court and I give you one argument and then I sit back down and I have to come back up and say, may it please the court for another case. That would be, so this is one session. All right. Okay. That makes sense. I think I understand. Is there a difference between the language point-to-point communication session, which is in the claims and point-to-point transmission, which is what is in the specification? Well, you're on a point-to-point transmission is what occurs during a point-to-point communication session. It's really referring to the data transmission. And what you may be keening into is the term appearing at the bottom of column 10 of the 686 pattern, which discusses non-point-to-point transmission, i.e. over the internet. Now, that's describing a medium
. It's a characteristic of how those non-point-to-point transmissions are current. The specification talks about an attachment between e-mail, for example, or a data repository where the sender is taking a file or data, putting it somewhere for the receiver to then later retrieve it. And the problem is with this pattern, or with this pattern recognizes it as an issue, is that when you send a transmission, and it's part of the same communication session, both parties know what the key is. There's basically an encryption decryption key created for that session. And so the data transmission and the receival is occurring in the context of which both parties know what the key would be. It's a temporary key for that session. Do you think that the pattern drafters use the term i.e. when they met to use the term eG in the context of this i.e. over the internet? But, Your Honor, I think what they intended here was to provide a characteristic of the non-point-to-point transmissions. Well, i.e. is worse for you than eG
. I think we can all agree with that. It makes your case harder. I disagree, Your Honor. And I know that Microsoft has pointed to skin medical. If i.e. means id-esh, which is what it means, that means they are equivalent. And that, it seems to me, makes the road tougher for you. EG, example of greatest, would mean it's just an example. Your Honor, if we only look at that soundbites. Well, yeah, but I'm trying. I want you to answer me. If you think that we should be looking charitably towards the use of the term i.e
. and assume perhaps that the drafters actually met eG, which a mistake that is made with some frequency among even native English speakers. Certainly, it's possible, Your Honor, that they made a mistake. I think if you look at the term, this clearly isn't a definition. This is describing a characteristic of non-point-to-point. But i.e. is definitional, is a definitional term. I understand certainly that under Scheme Medical, that there is a definitional term being imparted. And it could be that this is a mistake in that context, because they didn't use terms that indicate definition. They used a characteristic. Mr. Helge, your time is up, but we'll give you three minutes of a bottle time. Thank you. We ask a lot of questions. Mr. Peter Men. Thank you. May I please the Court. The structure of the claims of patents ensued require the different devices that issue in this appeal to be standalone, separate, and external. The totality of the intrinsic record confirms this. It's not just a single embodiment that uses a separate standalone and external security device. It's the entirety of the intrinsic record. Intrinsic record. Starting with the claims themselves, claim one of the six-eighths of patent requires a, requires one to provide a priority of security devices, each being associated with at least one of the set clarity of microprocessor-based devices. That in and of itself tells one of the skill in the art that you are adding security devices to microprocessor-based devices. Are you relying specifically on the language associated with there? That is part of what we are relying upon, because as the district court found associated with does imply some transients and separability as opposed to a embedding. We take this language from the claim, then you look at the rest of the intrinsic record. For the intrinsic record, it's very clear that what was being invented here was this idea of adding a security device to existing microprocessor-based devices
. Mr. Peter Men. Thank you. May I please the Court. The structure of the claims of patents ensued require the different devices that issue in this appeal to be standalone, separate, and external. The totality of the intrinsic record confirms this. It's not just a single embodiment that uses a separate standalone and external security device. It's the entirety of the intrinsic record. Intrinsic record. Starting with the claims themselves, claim one of the six-eighths of patent requires a, requires one to provide a priority of security devices, each being associated with at least one of the set clarity of microprocessor-based devices. That in and of itself tells one of the skill in the art that you are adding security devices to microprocessor-based devices. Are you relying specifically on the language associated with there? That is part of what we are relying upon, because as the district court found associated with does imply some transients and separability as opposed to a embedding. We take this language from the claim, then you look at the rest of the intrinsic record. For the intrinsic record, it's very clear that what was being invented here was this idea of adding a security device to existing microprocessor-based devices. I'm going back to the associated with. I'm not sure. Could you expand on why it is that the word associated suggests transients, as the district court said, because it doesn't necessarily suggest it to my ear. The term associated with, and we are reading this in combination with the rest of the intrinsic record, which definitely shows the separability, associated with, to my mind, implies something less than being within something else. A rock bands could be associated with each other, but they are different bands. What if you are associated with a law firm? It means you are within that law firm. It means that there is some connection to that law firm, but in connection with electronic devices and with the rest of the intrinsic record that we are discussing here, associated with, we believe, implies some link as opposed to a device coming out that has a security device inside of it. The court, district court did not rely upon solely associated with, and we are not solely relying upon associated with. We take associated with as a suggestion, and the application that we cited in connection with our brief show that this court on occasion has believed that associated with means something less than embedding, and means a link, which is consistent with how we are interpreting associated with. Now, that application, it did not actually define the term associated with it. The term associated with, wasn't the claim construction that was at that issue, but in the discussion of the claim construction, this court did take that term and state that it means a link as opposed to, well, less of a connection as opposed to embedding or link, but you are correct. Associated with, wasn't the claim term that was definitively at issue, but it was addressed. With respect to the law firm, for example, might you say that an associate isn't yet part of the firm? This is true. Having done both sides of it, I'm not sure what side is better, but that is correct
. I'm going back to the associated with. I'm not sure. Could you expand on why it is that the word associated suggests transients, as the district court said, because it doesn't necessarily suggest it to my ear. The term associated with, and we are reading this in combination with the rest of the intrinsic record, which definitely shows the separability, associated with, to my mind, implies something less than being within something else. A rock bands could be associated with each other, but they are different bands. What if you are associated with a law firm? It means you are within that law firm. It means that there is some connection to that law firm, but in connection with electronic devices and with the rest of the intrinsic record that we are discussing here, associated with, we believe, implies some link as opposed to a device coming out that has a security device inside of it. The court, district court did not rely upon solely associated with, and we are not solely relying upon associated with. We take associated with as a suggestion, and the application that we cited in connection with our brief show that this court on occasion has believed that associated with means something less than embedding, and means a link, which is consistent with how we are interpreting associated with. Now, that application, it did not actually define the term associated with it. The term associated with, wasn't the claim construction that was at that issue, but in the discussion of the claim construction, this court did take that term and state that it means a link as opposed to, well, less of a connection as opposed to embedding or link, but you are correct. Associated with, wasn't the claim term that was definitively at issue, but it was addressed. With respect to the law firm, for example, might you say that an associate isn't yet part of the firm? This is true. Having done both sides of it, I'm not sure what side is better, but that is correct. Associates are not yet members of the firm. When you turn to the rest of the intrinsic record, both from the field that the invention will talk about, the present invention relates to telecommunications, devices, and more audible, facsimile, and data transmissions. Turning to the background of the invention, which describes using a security device in connection with existing wired wireless telephones. Picking up in your printer's pricing, it is correct that later on in the invention, it describes the benefit of having a separate security device, because if you lose the computer and the encryption keys in that computer, that is worse for you than having two separate devices. Everything that is described within the specification talks about it in the context of having a separate and distinct security device from the micropossessor-based device. The district court went through a thorough analysis, starting with the kind of language itself as this court has directed it to do, went through the intrinsic record, and found correctly what we believe that security device has three characteristics, that stand alone, separate, and external. This court only need to find that one of those is true, we believe all three is true, but under the stipulation of non-infringement, the parties agreed that the devices at the ratio here are neither separate nor stand alone nor external, both in the direct infringement and under the doctrine of equivalence. Turning to the point to point language, the question to the person regarding IE versus EG, we believe that whether it's IE or EG, the specification clearly set forth what is point to point. It said, and it gave an example or definition, that non-point to point is our communications over the internet. It's there in column 10, and it's public notice of patents, one is entitled to rely upon it. There is nowhere else within the specification that describes point to point as communications occurring over the internet. The specification tells you what's not point to point, and all we're asking this court to do is affirm the district court's decision, which excluded the internet from point to point communications. What exactly do you understand the patent to have met by the term point to point? Well, that's a difficulty. I think the patent sets forth what is not point to point
. Associates are not yet members of the firm. When you turn to the rest of the intrinsic record, both from the field that the invention will talk about, the present invention relates to telecommunications, devices, and more audible, facsimile, and data transmissions. Turning to the background of the invention, which describes using a security device in connection with existing wired wireless telephones. Picking up in your printer's pricing, it is correct that later on in the invention, it describes the benefit of having a separate security device, because if you lose the computer and the encryption keys in that computer, that is worse for you than having two separate devices. Everything that is described within the specification talks about it in the context of having a separate and distinct security device from the micropossessor-based device. The district court went through a thorough analysis, starting with the kind of language itself as this court has directed it to do, went through the intrinsic record, and found correctly what we believe that security device has three characteristics, that stand alone, separate, and external. This court only need to find that one of those is true, we believe all three is true, but under the stipulation of non-infringement, the parties agreed that the devices at the ratio here are neither separate nor stand alone nor external, both in the direct infringement and under the doctrine of equivalence. Turning to the point to point language, the question to the person regarding IE versus EG, we believe that whether it's IE or EG, the specification clearly set forth what is point to point. It said, and it gave an example or definition, that non-point to point is our communications over the internet. It's there in column 10, and it's public notice of patents, one is entitled to rely upon it. There is nowhere else within the specification that describes point to point as communications occurring over the internet. The specification tells you what's not point to point, and all we're asking this court to do is affirm the district court's decision, which excluded the internet from point to point communications. What exactly do you understand the patent to have met by the term point to point? Well, that's a difficulty. I think the patent sets forth what is not point to point. I think there's one-tall of issues that arise when you try to look at what is not talking about when it says point to point. It doesn't say it. The parties don't argue that there's a common and understudent meaning of point to point outside of the context of this patent back in 1999, 2000, what they meaning is. So we're looking within the four corners of the patent, and it tells you what's not point to point, and that's over the internet. It could be inferred, I suppose, from the Senate that follows the infamous IE, where the patent says, in these types of non-real-time transmissions, suggests that point to point might be a real-time transmission. Would you agree with that characterization? Well, I think that the patent specifically refers to defines point to point in connection with internet. I believe that you can, internet transmissions are often not quote unquote real-time, because they are packet-based communications which scramble the transmissions, and they're not quote unquote real-time transmissions. So I don't think there's anything inconsistent between excluding the internet and the discussion regarding non-point to point and not real-time. And so it's taken column 10, which either whether it's definitional or giving an example of what's non-point to point, looking at the rest of the specification, which doesn't anywhere else specifically describe what point to point is. And I don't also point out that in the claims within the patent, not all of the claims require point to point. It was a term that was used in a number of the claims, but claim 21 does not include a point to point requirement. So any suggestion that somehow we're trying to read out preferred embodiments here is not correct, because claim 21 would cover internet-based embodiments. It was the patent T's decision to use point to point in the rest of the claims, including claim 1 and claim 13. So point to point has to have some meaning
. I think there's one-tall of issues that arise when you try to look at what is not talking about when it says point to point. It doesn't say it. The parties don't argue that there's a common and understudent meaning of point to point outside of the context of this patent back in 1999, 2000, what they meaning is. So we're looking within the four corners of the patent, and it tells you what's not point to point, and that's over the internet. It could be inferred, I suppose, from the Senate that follows the infamous IE, where the patent says, in these types of non-real-time transmissions, suggests that point to point might be a real-time transmission. Would you agree with that characterization? Well, I think that the patent specifically refers to defines point to point in connection with internet. I believe that you can, internet transmissions are often not quote unquote real-time, because they are packet-based communications which scramble the transmissions, and they're not quote unquote real-time transmissions. So I don't think there's anything inconsistent between excluding the internet and the discussion regarding non-point to point and not real-time. And so it's taken column 10, which either whether it's definitional or giving an example of what's non-point to point, looking at the rest of the specification, which doesn't anywhere else specifically describe what point to point is. And I don't also point out that in the claims within the patent, not all of the claims require point to point. It was a term that was used in a number of the claims, but claim 21 does not include a point to point requirement. So any suggestion that somehow we're trying to read out preferred embodiments here is not correct, because claim 21 would cover internet-based embodiments. It was the patent T's decision to use point to point in the rest of the claims, including claim 1 and claim 13. So point to point has to have some meaning. And the patent T told us what point to point doesn't mean. And the district court found that point to point excludes communications over the internet. And there's nothing within specification that we believe dictates a different result. Is it possible to have a point to point communication session that comprises non-point to point transmissions? And just looking at the difference between the use of session in the claims and transmissions in this back. Is possible to have a point to point communication session that includes non-point to point transmissions? I think the patent really has two separate sessions. It has point to point sessions and has non-point to point sessions. And so I would say that at least under the specification, as it's described, that situation wouldn't be possible that there are two separate entities. Either you have a point to point communication session or you have a non-point to point communication session. Whether that could be done within the same sitting, for example, you start off point to point and then you stop the point to point communication session and then have a non-point to point communication session, that may be possible. But I think keeping a point to point communication session open and then having non-point to point within it, we're really talking about different sessions. The patent doesn't specifically define what sessions are. The sessions weren't a claim term that was in dispute. It's really the question of point to point versus non-point to point. And we think the patent is quite clear that non-point to point, it's, you know, excludes the internet
. And the patent T told us what point to point doesn't mean. And the district court found that point to point excludes communications over the internet. And there's nothing within specification that we believe dictates a different result. Is it possible to have a point to point communication session that comprises non-point to point transmissions? And just looking at the difference between the use of session in the claims and transmissions in this back. Is possible to have a point to point communication session that includes non-point to point transmissions? I think the patent really has two separate sessions. It has point to point sessions and has non-point to point sessions. And so I would say that at least under the specification, as it's described, that situation wouldn't be possible that there are two separate entities. Either you have a point to point communication session or you have a non-point to point communication session. Whether that could be done within the same sitting, for example, you start off point to point and then you stop the point to point communication session and then have a non-point to point communication session, that may be possible. But I think keeping a point to point communication session open and then having non-point to point within it, we're really talking about different sessions. The patent doesn't specifically define what sessions are. The sessions weren't a claim term that was in dispute. It's really the question of point to point versus non-point to point. And we think the patent is quite clear that non-point to point, it's, you know, excludes the internet. If we were to reject the argument that point to point can't include the internet. But we're to conclude that point to point really should be understood to mean a type of real-time transmission. Would that in your view change the analysis or outcome of this case, given your characterization of the way the internet communicates or affects communications? Our position would be that the internet, believe it's not real-time communications because it is a packet-based communication system. And that, you know, in our view, is not real-time. Would we need, if we were to reach that conclusion, rejecting the district court's analysis of internet as being not a point to point, but nonetheless, that point to point means real-time transmission, would that require a remand in your view? I think you can certainly take judicial notice as to whether point to point requires real-time or whether the internet is real-time. So when you necessarily require a remand. Okay. We have a number of bases for affirming the district court's decision. One is the question of security devices. Right. As opposed to the science of the point to point, as you understand. But within the context of the point to point, I'm really trying to see if there's a difference between saying that the internet is a non-point to point versus saying that something that uses the internet is not something that is a real-time transfer. We believe that both provided bases were affirming the district court's decision. Just in conclusion, this is not a case about a disclaimer
. If we were to reject the argument that point to point can't include the internet. But we're to conclude that point to point really should be understood to mean a type of real-time transmission. Would that in your view change the analysis or outcome of this case, given your characterization of the way the internet communicates or affects communications? Our position would be that the internet, believe it's not real-time communications because it is a packet-based communication system. And that, you know, in our view, is not real-time. Would we need, if we were to reach that conclusion, rejecting the district court's analysis of internet as being not a point to point, but nonetheless, that point to point means real-time transmission, would that require a remand in your view? I think you can certainly take judicial notice as to whether point to point requires real-time or whether the internet is real-time. So when you necessarily require a remand. Okay. We have a number of bases for affirming the district court's decision. One is the question of security devices. Right. As opposed to the science of the point to point, as you understand. But within the context of the point to point, I'm really trying to see if there's a difference between saying that the internet is a non-point to point versus saying that something that uses the internet is not something that is a real-time transfer. We believe that both provided bases were affirming the district court's decision. Just in conclusion, this is not a case about a disclaimer. The security device that is at an issue here, there is no common and ordinary can understand meaning to what security device is. Security device is something that is completely context-dependent, whether you're talking about car alarm, even within the realm of computer science and electronic communications. What Microsoft proposed and what the district court correctly did was take a step-by-step analysis through the claims, through the prosecution, the prosecution's entry, which really wasn't at issue here, and the intrinsic record, and found that security device is a separate and distinct external device from a microprocessor-based device. Thank you, Mr. Peterman. Mr. Helge has three minutes for a bottle. Thank you, Your Honor. We are getting led straight here with the focus on the IE with respect to non-point to point and transmissions. The specification tells us that the network 60, shown in Figure 1, can include the Internet. It can be Internet. And indeed, if we look at the headers running from column 10, 11, and 12 with the 686 patent, we see a disclosure. We see a road map of what the patentee had in mind with respect to point to point versus non-point to point. In column 10, we see a header talking about encryption
. The security device that is at an issue here, there is no common and ordinary can understand meaning to what security device is. Security device is something that is completely context-dependent, whether you're talking about car alarm, even within the realm of computer science and electronic communications. What Microsoft proposed and what the district court correctly did was take a step-by-step analysis through the claims, through the prosecution, the prosecution's entry, which really wasn't at issue here, and the intrinsic record, and found that security device is a separate and distinct external device from a microprocessor-based device. Thank you, Mr. Peterman. Mr. Helge has three minutes for a bottle. Thank you, Your Honor. We are getting led straight here with the focus on the IE with respect to non-point to point and transmissions. The specification tells us that the network 60, shown in Figure 1, can include the Internet. It can be Internet. And indeed, if we look at the headers running from column 10, 11, and 12 with the 686 patent, we see a disclosure. We see a road map of what the patentee had in mind with respect to point to point versus non-point to point. In column 10, we see a header talking about encryption. And we see the importance of real time versus non-real time. We see the importance of how that affects the key generation, whether we can use a permanent key, or whether we need to create one key for each session. Now, drawing the distinction between real time and non-real time, do you see that as an acceptable distinction between the point to point and non-point to point transmission? I do, Your Honor, because it's actually supported in the columns 11 and 12. And can you prevail in this case with that definition of point to point, given Mr. Peterman's argument that the Internet does not work on a real time basis? You're on a food to say the Internet does not work on a real time basis. That's inconsistent with how the patentee had this transmission in mind. For example, in column 12, there is the discussion of the key that was previously negotiated between the parties. What that indicates, and this is under simultaneous voice, affects similarly data transmission. The patentee then refers to the fact that this information, this encrypted data, is being transmitted over the Internet. And this is under the header dealing with simultaneous data transmission. This is what the patentee had in mind as real time. We haven't had construction of the term real time. We haven't had expert testimony on real time. And what the patentee had in mind, this is simply an issue that hasn't been briefed because we're really at the claim construction phase
. And we see the importance of real time versus non-real time. We see the importance of how that affects the key generation, whether we can use a permanent key, or whether we need to create one key for each session. Now, drawing the distinction between real time and non-real time, do you see that as an acceptable distinction between the point to point and non-point to point transmission? I do, Your Honor, because it's actually supported in the columns 11 and 12. And can you prevail in this case with that definition of point to point, given Mr. Peterman's argument that the Internet does not work on a real time basis? You're on a food to say the Internet does not work on a real time basis. That's inconsistent with how the patentee had this transmission in mind. For example, in column 12, there is the discussion of the key that was previously negotiated between the parties. What that indicates, and this is under simultaneous voice, affects similarly data transmission. The patentee then refers to the fact that this information, this encrypted data, is being transmitted over the Internet. And this is under the header dealing with simultaneous data transmission. This is what the patentee had in mind as real time. We haven't had construction of the term real time. We haven't had expert testimony on real time. And what the patentee had in mind, this is simply an issue that hasn't been briefed because we're really at the claim construction phase. And we're not at a situation where we're looking at the facts of whether Internet transmissions, which patentee thought could be real time, are truly real time under perhaps a different interpretation. So, columns 11 and 12, we are looking at the idea of point to point. There is a header at the middle of column 12 where we start talking about nonpoint to point transmissions. And this here, we talk about the email attachment, we talk about file repositories, and we see that the patentee had in mind that nonpoint to point transmissions could occur over the Internet. And in fact, those are the only embodiments that they described. Can you emphasize that element 60 could be the Internet? Yes, sir. But it also says it could be a PSTN, right? It does, right? It does. A PSTN point to point communication, no matter how it's defined either as real time or as being not the Internet. PSTN is only described in the context, or it would not include the nonpoint to point. It simply isn't within part of the embodiments that the nonpoint to point describe. But the communication system 16, column 12, doesn't say point to point is only the PSTN. It simply says the communication 60, which we refer back to includes the Internet. I see my time is up if there are any further questions. We have to answer
. Thank you, Mr. Helge. We'll take the case under the rise. All right