Calypso Wireless (fka CLYW)

[HighRider]

This will probably be my last comment on this since I know others don't really care. If you look at the discussion notes from Sirh you see Tmob was trying to nail it down to a fixed distance.

Term 1: "Pre-established vicinity range": as meaning pre-determined maximum distance between wireless device and computer facility.
- Plantiff: Wanted to refer to some of the expert testimony. Approached the technical advisor to the court and provided him with a copy. Provided copies of the presentation to the advisor and court.
- Calypso argued that it is more important to consider power level, zones, environmental factors, and interference in addition to distance and argued for the following definition: "a zone or coverage area within which the at least two transceivers are able to recognize each other and communicate"
- The Judge needed convincing that this was supported by the wording of the patent.
- Discussed the preset power level and how it is related specifically to the pre-established vicinity range
- There are situations where a device is within a pre-defined range but due to environmental factors it cannot authenticate and transmit data. This is supported by the language in the patent.
- Defendant: T-mobile argued that the vicinity IS defined as a distance and specifically that the Calypso patent refers to a fixed-distance.
- Judge indicated that Tmobile's more restrictive suggested definition may exclude bluetooth and asked t-mobile to provide specific evidence from the patent application that would support their more restrictive definition. Also wanted to know if t-mobile had any objections to wifi and bluetooth being essentially the same. They had no objections.
- Plaintiff: would like to make additional remarks.
- further argued that the pre-determined range must be within an area of coverage
- Referred to the patent diagram and argued that item 24 is a piconet, not a fixed distance.