Appeal 2007-1751
Application 09/769,511
1 • claims 2-5, 8-12, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
2 Greene, Lynch-Aird, and Chang;
3 • claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Greene, Lynch-Aird,
4 Chang, and Harrison; and
5 • claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Greene,
6 Lynch-Aird, Chang, Harrison, and Haralambopoulos.
7 These issues turn on whether the prior art teaches or suggests storing user-
8 specified access cost information for a user terminal in a calling system.
9 FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
10 The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are supported by a
11 preponderance of the evidence.
12 Claim Construction
13 01. The Specification contains no lexicographic definition of “user-
14 specified access cost information.”
15 02. To specify, in the context of setting forth information, is to state
16 explicitly or in detail, or to state as a condition1.
17 03. Access as a noun is the ability or right to approach, enter, exit,
18 communicate with, or make use of.
19 04. The phrase “user-specified” does not constrain the specification by the
20 user to be direct or indirect.
21 05. The phrase “cost information” does not indicate the particular
22 information involved, but only that it pertains to costs in some manner.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013