After a full round of briefing and oral argument, Magistrate Judge Hubel issued a report and recommendation regarding claim construction, as reported here. Now, each party has objected to the report, and each party has responded to the other's objections:
- Google's objections [PDF]
- Traffic's objections [PDF]
- Google's response to Traffic's objections [PDF]
- Traffic's response to Google's objections [PDF]
Google continues to argue that the claims are indefinite, while Traffic contends that the report's constructions are overly narrow. Interestingly, both parties describe some of the report's constructions as incorporating arbitrary limitations from the specification. To Google, that illustrates the ambiguity of the claim language, while Traffic says that is the tell-tale sign of an erroneous construction.