Use of definitive terms such as “always” indicates that the corresponding characteristic is universal to the invention. Here, for example, the claimed “power control bit” was found to be limited to a single-bit power control command because the specification described power control information as being “always conveyed as a single bit.” It may therefore be best to use more permissive language such as “may be” rather than definitive terms such as “always,” even when the latter is true of all embodiments contemplated at the time of the invention.
Background / Facts: The patents being asserted here by way of the ITC are directed to cellphone technology, and in particular, code division multiple access (“CDMA”) networks. The claims recite a method of power control in which a subscriber unit receives “a power control bit” on a downlink control channel, with “the power control bit indicating either an increase or decrease in transmission power level.” The Commission limited the term “a power control bit” to single-bit power control commands, distinct from the accused products’ use of only multi-bit power control commands.
Issue(s): Whether the Commission erred in limiting the term “a power control bit” to single-bit power control commands.
Holding(s): No. “[T]he Commission relied on the following statements [in the specification], among others, to conclude that [the disclosed Automatic Power Control] APC information is conveyed as single-bit commands: ‘APC information is always conveyed as a single bit of information, and the APC Data Rate is equivalent to the APC update rate.’ … [T]he language of the excerpts shows that the concept of single-bit power control commands is not limited to preferred embodiments. As to the first excerpt, the use of ‘always’ when referring to the use of ‘single bit of information,’ but not when referring to the APC Data Rate, indicates that the single-bit limitation is universal to the invention, whereas the APC Data Rate is not.”