Thank you for this. Definitely worth the read.
After reading it I find it odd that Cisco is arguing about the fact that Chanbond is not specific enough with the term "channel" saying that it is too broad to just assume it include RF channels. However, at the same time they argue that Tidemann's patent, which should render Chanbond's invalid should be assumed to include more than just voice data, even though the entire patent is based around voice data.
They are arguing that Chanbond's patent is too broad and should be more specific, but that Tidemann's patent, which is very specific, should just be assumed to include more types of data than the patent is centered around, without any mention of any other data besides voice data.
I'm no lawyer, but that doesn't seem like a sound argument to me.
