I am very impressed with the Court's Markman ruling. We certainly are blessed with an intelligent Court Staff.
I've read pages 33-47 concerning "pre-established vicinity range" a few times. The Court argues that this range is a distance rather than an amorphous coverage area. This is agreeable. A router box has coverage "up to" distance. There are many factors like interference, constructive interference, propagation effects, etc. which make the reality an amorphous area. So the Court is saying this:
"Plaintiffs (CLYW) have not identified any explanation, characterization, or implication that a "pre-established vicinity range" is defined as a coverage area or zone within which the transceiver assembly can communicate, and the Court finds none."
In other words, if you are in the "up to" maximum distance of router that does not guarantee the transceivers can communicate. That certainly makes sense.
Finally, I am just going to copy verbatim the last paragraph from the Court on this definition. It is my belief that it is favorable to CLYW.
BEGIN QUOTE
At the September 10, 2012 hearing, the Court proposed construing "pre-established vicinity range" to mean "a predetermined maximum distance existing between the wireless communication device and the computer facility." T-Mobile was agreeable to the Court's preliminary construction. Plaintiff argued against the construction, noting that the disclosure in the specification of a "maximum distance" suggests that it is distinct distinct {my note: double words here are same as document) from the "pre-established vicinity range";
[Below is the passage later referenced by the Court:]
'In order to accomplish this identification parameter, the maximum distance between the wireless communication device 10 and the computer 20 must be within the pre-established vicinity range, which of course may vary, as described above.'
'923 Patent at 6:63-67. The Court disagrees with Plaintiffs' interpretation of the evidence. This passage from the specification uses "maximum distance" to refer to the actual distance between the wireless communication device and the computer at a given time during operation, which could vary if the wireless communication device moves closer or farther away. The disputed claim term and the Court's preliminary construction both refer to a "predetermined" maximum distance. This is a predetermined parameter that does not change, based on movement or otherwise, during normal operation. Instead, this is one of potentially several predetermined parameters that can be used in determining which communication network to use during operation. THUS, THE PASSAGE EMPHASIZED BY PLAINTIFFS IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION [my emphasis added].
Bottom line: The predetermined maximum distance is the "up to" distance of the router and for there to be any communication between devices you must at the very least be within this distance.
------------------------------------------------------
DSU (nickname downsideup) pointed me in the right direction in understanding all this. I think the Court has clearly proven his correct reasoning on this issue.
