Appeal No. 2005-2642
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,841
inflation adjustment is “responsive to a rate of inflation” should be understood as
requiring no more than that the inflation adjustment be (a) “responsive to” the rate
of prior actual inflation and (b) “directly responsive to” (i.e., based on) the data of a
market indicator of prior actual inflation, which may represent inflated price levels rather
than inflation rates.
Appellant’s reliance on the district court’s Markman order (Brief at 7) for a
narrower definition is improper for the reasons given above. Also, because it is
improper to read disclosed examples into the claims, American Academy, 367 F.3d at
1369, 70 USPQ2d at 1834, we are unpersuaded by appellant’s argument that
[i]n each of the examples in the ‘461 specification, the inflation component
is adjusted for any amount of inflation, and adjusted on a one-for one
basis. ‘461 specification, col. 10 to col. 26. Accordingly, reading the
definition and the examples, one of skill would understand that there must
be a direct correspondence between the rate of inflation and the amount
by which the variable interest component is adjusted.
Brief at 6-7.
Moving on to the next construction question, each of the independent claims
additionally calls for the deposit account (claims 1, 24, and 36) and the loan account
(claim 36) to have a “term,” which is defined by several passages in the specification.
The first reads: “As referred to herein, the account term is the time period over which
the account is retired or ‘paid out’ to the account holder.” ‘461 Patent at col. 3, ll. 41-43.
While this definition is ambiguous regarding whether the term begins when the account
is opened or with the first payout or retirement payment, that ambiguity is removed by
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007