Different terminology is presumed to carry different meanings. Here, for example, the claimed “data channel” added during prosecution was found to be distinct from the specification’s discussion of “data feeds” because the term “data channel” was not used in the specification and the term “data feed” was used elsewhere in several of the dependent claims. “Different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.” It may therefore be best to use consistent terminology when referring to the same concept.
Background / Facts: The patent being asserted here is directed to a method of data communication connecting on-line networks with on-line and off-line computers. The final step of independent claim 1 recites notifying remote devices of certain preprocessed data whether the devices are online or offline from “a data channel associated with each device.” The specification does not use the term “data channel,” but instead refers to “data feeds” that can be used to register and receive broadcasts.
Issue(s): Whether the claimed “data channel” should be construed consistently with the term “data feeds” of the specification rather than more broadly in accordance with its ordinary meaning.
Holding(s): No. “[W]hen the patentee amended the patent in 2004, it chose to use the term ‘data channel,’ which does not appear in the patent’s written description, rather than the term ‘data feed,’ which does. The term ‘data feed’ is also used in certain dependent claims. [] The choice to use ‘data channel’ in claim 1 rather than ‘data feed,’ notwithstanding use of the latter elsewhere in the patent, lends further support to our conclusion that ‘data feed’ does not carry the same meaning as ‘data channel.’”