In general, “an element” that is later referenced as “the element” with corresponding antecedent basis must be the same element. Thus, as here, “a change” that is identified and later referenced as “the change” being communicated requires that the same “change” being identified be the one that is communicated, not some other (even if related) change. To avoid confusion (e.g., when there is a substantial amount of information processing), it may be appropriate to distinguish between the two elements and otherwise indicate that they are associated with one another, although not identical.
Background / Facts: The patent on appeal here from adjudication at the ITC is directed to mobile device network synchronization, cutting down on wasted resources by ensuring that subscriber units are only sent appropriate information over a wireless network – i.e., information that relates to the subscriber unit’s latest accessibility settings. This is done by maintaining a registry of the applications accessible to the subscriber unit and communicating information regarding the accessibility of those applications to the fixed portion of the wireless communications network. In this regard, the claims recite that in response to “a change in [the] accessibility of an application,” the subscriber unit will “update the application registry and control the transmitter [of the subscriber unit] to communicate the change to the fixed portion of the wireless communication system.” In the accused devices, a push-enabled application may be deleted from the mobile device and a subsequent communication sent to the fixed portion of the network cancelling push notifications for the deleted application.
Issue(s): Whether the change in accessibility of deletion is the same change in accessibility that is communicated to the fixed portion of the network.
Holding(s): No. For the analysis, it must be taken as a given that “[t]he parties do not materially dispute [that] the relevant operation of the accused functions … include[s] two distinct changes in accessibility: (1) the change in accessibility associated with the installation or deletion of an application and (2) the change in accessibility associated with authorizing or cancelling push notifications.” With this factual underpinning in mind, the court found that what is communicated to the fixed portion of the network is “a message indicating that push notifications for the application should be cancelled,” but that this message “does not inform the fixed portion of the network that the application has been deleted.” “[T]he claim requires that ‘the change’ be communicated to the fixed portion of the wireless network. Since the only antecedent basis for this change derives from the phrase ‘a change in accessibility,’ the change that causes an update to the application registry must be the same change that is communicated to the fixed portion of the wireless network.”