Appeal No. 2002-1686
Application No. 09/188,680
claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Claims will be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and
limitations appearing in the specification are not to be read
into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5
(Fed. Cir. 1985). Our reviewing court also states in In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
that "claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms
reasonably allow."
We note that Appellants' claim 1 recites
[a] method for analyzing a plurality of calls on a
telecommunication network, the method comprising the
steps of:
capturing particular management data messages . . . and
compiling a detailed record of each of a plurality of
interconnect calls crossing an interface between the first
carrier's telecommunication network and the second carrier's
telecommunication network from the captured particular management
data messages;
loading a plurality of detailed records of the plurality of
interconnect calls into a table in a database; and
processing the detailed records in the database table to
form a report of interconnect call traffic crossing the interface
between the telecommunication networks, wherein the step of
processing comprises:
enhancing the detailed records in the database table;
99
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007