Appeal No. 2005-2657 Page 7
Application No. 09/898,497
to appellants’ claim 1 to derive an understanding of the scope
and content thereof.
From our review of the language of claim 1, we note that the
transitional phrase “comprising” is open-ended, and the language
“determining whether a location of the MU is inside or outside a
predetermined subsidized zone” does not preclude the
determination from being made after a determination of whether
the cell phone subscriber agrees to accept advertisements before
and/or during cell phone calls. We additionally find that the
claim does not recite what the first and second predetermined
billing rates are or how they compare to each other. Nor does
the claim recite where the MU is located. The claim step simply
determines whether the location of the MU is inside or outside a
predetermined subsidized area. We additionally find that the
“responsive” steps can be in either order, but that both steps
must follow the “determining” step.
With this claim interpretation in mind, we turn to Owensby.
From our review of the reference, we make the following findings
of fact:
(1)the invention relates to a system and method for(1)
inserting, before and during wireless mobile
communications, commercial information or
advertisements that are targeted to the subscriber of
the wireless mobile communications service (para 2).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007