"I choose to believe this sounds favorable to VHC, as VHC IS a family of patents addressing communications security."
Read it again, and this time without your rose colored glasses.
‘[T]he Board is
not required to accept a patent owner’s arguments as
disclaimer when deciding the merits of those arguments,’ wrote Judge
Timothy Dyk, citing to the Federal Circuit’s 2019 decision in
VirnetX Inc. v. Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd.
Judge Dyk elaborated that
allowing patentees to tailor claims during
IPR through argument alone would frustrate the Congressional purpose in
enacting IPR trials, especially Congress’ grant of significant power to
revise patent grants to keep “patent monopolies” within their legitimate
scope.
In other words, the patentee may not change the meaning of the claim by narrowing, or broadening, it's meaning.