Yes, the Cisco lawyer went first and discussed his briefing slides to argue the term channels....they are trying to get a ruling (or change on a previous decision) on what a RF really means in the patent filing and whether it is synonymous with the word channels and whether is means frequency or something else. My opinion which means nothing because I am not a lawyer or judge is, I don’t think the Cisco lawyer won that point and the judges asked if they ruled against his stance on channel would that make his case fail. He said no, as they had other points... I don’t think the judges will not rule against a previous court decision.
They went into CDMA and FDMA and TDMA.... I am not sure that the Cisco lawyer won that point either. Cisco argues that the this technology had already been done and then brought a slide up that showed a1998 Qualcomm diagram that connected a phone,which they considered a modem, to a laptop to explain that a phone back in 1998 could perform the same high rate data combining that Chanbonds patent is doing. I am not sure that that point was won by Cisco lawyers (although I think it was a good argument and point by Cisco lawyer). Here is why I don’t think they won that point either....if Qualcomm or Cisco had developed that technology in 1998 or 2000 why are we having this trial.... I don’t think the argument is whether someone had thought about sending data and recombining it when it got to the place where it needed to be recombined... I think the technology that ChanBond developed is more advanced and different than what was done 19 years ago. Furthermore, it is hard for me to believe that technology didn’t advance during the last 19 years which afforded a new type of data combining due to technological advancements!
Not sure there was an overwhelming argument to change what has already been decided. But the Cisco lawyer was pretty confident in his argument.
AI
