While a context-specific analysis, an explicit order of operations in the claims may affect the interpretation of individual claim terms by providing additional antecedent basis for linking elements among the recited steps.
Background / Facts: The patent being asserted here is directed to collect calling using Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) technology. The relevant language from representative claim 1 recites, “[1] temporarily transmitting voice of a caller to the called terminal to identify the caller when the second communication link is established, and [2] then prohibiting voice transmission until a collect call acceptance arrives after the temporary voice transmission.”
Issue(s): Whether these terms require the transmission of a “live” voice identifying the caller and thereby exclude embodiments in which a recorded voice is used to identify the caller.
Holding(s): Yes. “The phrase, ‘then prohibiting voice transmission,’ requires that the temporary voice transmission in the claims refer to a ‘live’ voice. As the district court concluded, if the step of ‘temporarily transmitting voice of a caller’ did not involve the live voice of the caller, the step of ‘then prohibiting voice transmission’ would be superfluous.” That is, “if the temporary voice transmission was a recording, there would be no need to ‘then prohibit[]’ voice transmission because the recording would end on its own.” Thus, although the court agreed that “the two terms ‘voice of a caller’ and ‘voice transmission’ [in the two steps at issue] do not have the same exact scope,” it concluded “that they still refer to the same type of transmissions.” Any missing antecedent basis for linking the two may be inferred here from the explicit order of operations.