Appeal 2006-1601
Application 09/828,579
(7)
The Board’s Claim Construction
To determine whether Ehlers anticipates claims 6 and 9, we must first
determine the scope of the claims. Our reviewing court stated in Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005), cert. denied,
sub nom. AWH Corp. v Phillips, 126 S. Ct. 1332 (2006):
The claims, of course, do not stand alone. Rather, they are part of “a
fully integrated written instrument,” Markman, 52 F.3d at 978,
consisting principally of a specification that concludes with the
claims. For that reason, claims “must be read in view of the
specification, of which they are a part.” Id. at 979. As we stated in
Vitronics, the specification “is always highly relevant to the claim
construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best
guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” 90 F.3d at 1582.
Upon our review of Appellant’s claim 6 in light of Appellant’s
Specification, we conclude the following:
(a) Preamble – The “future rate changes” of the preamble is not limited
solely to rate changes that occur at some time after the present.
Rather, Appellant’s Specification specifically states that the “future
rate changes system 50” has “the ability to provide for a change in
rate plan to become effective immediately, at some preselected time,
or on the next billing cycle run.” (Specification 10:4-6). Thus
Appellant has defined “future rate changes” broadly to include any
time starting immediately.
Also, the “billing system” of the preamble is not limited solely
to systems which send out bills in the conventional sense. Rather,
Appellant’s Specification specifically states “[t]he billing system 30
includes an accounting 31, reporting 32, billing 33, record collection
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013