Appeal No. 2001-2055 Page 6
Application No. 08/750,870
Here, claim 6 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "service
requests are initially directed from their originating network terminations by establishing
a signalling connection to a service processing means . . . and the service processing
means provides services to a network termination over the signalling connections, the
service processing means also controlling switching means to establish a
communications connection with the network termination only if required by the service
requested." Despite the appellants’ aforementioned argument, the claim neither recites
that the service requests lead "directly" to the establishment of a communication
connection nor recites that a communications connection is established "as part of the
same transaction" as the service request.2 Giving the representative claim its broadest,
reasonable construction, the limitations require directing a request for a service from a
network termination to a service processing means via signaling connections,
responding to the service request via the signaling connections, and establishing a
communications connection with the network termination if required by the requested
service.
2Furthermore, we agree with the examiner that other "argued features such as
subsequent connection and concurrent request are not recited in the rejected claim[]."
(Examiner's Answer at 5.) At oral hearing, the appellants' counsel offered to amend the
claims to more clearly specify the invention. We leave such matters to the appellants'
prosecution before the examiner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007