Appeal No. 2005-2642
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,841
Each of the independent claims (1, 24, and 36) calls for either adjusting an
amount “in a manner responsive to the rate of inflation” (claims 1 and 36) or enhancing
a component “responsive to the rate of inflation” (claim 24). Appellant’s argument for a
continuous relationship rests on the following definition of “responsive to the rate of
inflation” in the specification: “Responsive to the rate of inflation, as used herein, means
directly responsive to a market indicator of prior actual inflation and it is not meant to
include the market's expectation of future inflation.” ‘461 Patent at col. 3, ll. 11-14. This
definition has several possible interpretations. It can be construed as defining (1) only
the phrase “responsive to the rate of inflation”; (2) the phrase “the rate of inflation” (our
emphasis), whether or not preceded by “responsive to”; or (3) the phrase “rate of
inflation,” whether preceded by “a” or “the.” We conclude that interpretation (3) is the
broadest reasonable one and will so construe the phrase “rate of inflation” in all of the
claims. As for the effect of the use of “directly responsive to” instead of “responsive to”
in the definition, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the chosen phraseology is
that it was meant to emphasize that the calculations of inflation adjustments must be
based on the market indicator data which represents prior actual inflation (e.g., the CPI-
U). See The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 373 (copy
enclosed) (New College Edition, 1975) (hereinafter American Heritage Dictionary)
(defining “directly” to mean: “1. In a direct line or manner; straight. . . . 2. Without
anyone or anything intervening; immediately.”). Nothing in the specification clearly
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007