Appeal No. 2002-2174
Application No. 09/263,166 Page 9
requires so limiting an interpretation of the claim. If
appellants want the claim to require that the match criteria are
met by the consumer, then the claim should specifically require
the limitation. We decline to read into the claim limitations
not found therein.
From our review of Johnson, we agree with the examiner
(answer, page 6) that the value of the bid is based on the
Carrier having excess capacity on the line at the time of the
request, which meets the claimed value of the incentive being
based on match criteria. However, we do not agree with the
examiner that the list of bids from the Carriers reads on the
selecting mechanism. In Johnson, the selecting mechanism is the
least cost routing software in the Subscriber switch. The list
of bids provides the Subscribers with the incentives offered by
each Carrier. The list of bids is merely a list and is not a
mechanism for selecting a bid for transmitting a call between two
specific points. In addition, the selecting mechanism in Johnson
is the same for all Subscriber switches. Claim 1 requires that a
selecting mechanism is published for each incentive. Although we
agree with the examiner that broadcasting information to the
Subscriber can broadly be considered to be "publishing" the bid
data, we find no teaching that there is a selecting mechanism for
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007