Appeal No. 2002-0366 Page 12
Application No. 08/803,692
but not in the order recited in the claim, because the co-worker
grants permission to be in the encounter window of other workers
before he is selected. Although Tang'173 further discloses (col.
10, lines 34-36) that alternatively, the worker can specify for
each mode the type or degree of information to be provided back
to the other workers, we find that this disclosure does not
suggest, without speculation, the granting of permission after a
request to add the co-worker has been made. In sum, we find that
the steps of claim 27 are met by the teachings of Tang'365 and
Tang'173, but they are not met in the order recited. However, we
find nothing in the claim, specification, or prosecution history,
that would require that the steps be carried out in the order
claimed. As set forth by the court in Interactive Gift Express
Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1401, 1416 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
"Unless the steps of a method actually recite an order, the steps
are not ordinarily construed to require one." See Loral
Fairchild Corp. v. Sony Corp., 181 F.3d 1313, 1322, 50 USPQ2d
1865, 1870 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating that “not every process
claim is limited to the performance of its steps in the order
written”). However, such a result can ensue when the method
steps implicitly require that they be performed in the order
written. See Loral, 181 F.3d at 1322, 50 USPQ2d at 1870 (stating
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007