Appeal No. 97-2725
Application 08/138,456
1, 5 (CCPA 1982) and In re Richards, 187 F.2d 643, 645, 89
USPQ 64, 66 (CCPA 1951).
Furthermore, contrary to the implications of appellant’s
arguments on page 20 of the brief, Susuki’s block-shaped sign
is not only capable of supporting vehicular traffic but is
obviously intended to support such traffic for the embodiment
shown in Figure 2 of the patent drawings. Also, it is apparent
from Figure 2 of Susuki’s patent drawings that the identifier
elements 10 maintain an indicating capability after the top
surface of the block has worn away. It is also apparent that
the illustrated number of elements 10 in Figure 2 of Susuki’s
patent is inherently capable of arbitrarily identifying a
specific type of petroleum product, which is all that is
required to meet this limitation in claim 22. Standard Havens
Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d at 1369, 212
USPQ2d at 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Finally, the intended use statement in the preamble of
claim 22 is not germane to the patentability of the identifier
itself. See Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal Ltd., 781 F.2d 861,
868, 228 USPQ 90, 94 (Fed. Cir. 1985), In re Casey, 370 F.2d
576, 580, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967) and In re Lemin, 326
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007