Appeal No. 2002-2292
Application No. 09/139,749
Muszynski never discusses such diversity legs “during CN-RNC
interface streamlining,” as claimed. That is, there is no
discussion in Muszynski about any core network-radio network
controller interface. However, this limitation appears only in
the preamble of independent claim 1 and there is nothing within
the body of the claim to tie back to this environment, the body
merely reciting steps of communication between first and second
radio network controllers.
Claim limitations, even in the preamble, are essential if
‘necessary to give life and meaning’ to the claims and properly
define the invention. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 23 USPQ2d
17870 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In the instant case, the fact that the
reconfiguration is taking place “during CN-RNC interface
streamlining” does not appear to give any “life and meaning” to
the recited steps in the body of the claim. Accordingly, such
limitation does not appear “essential.” In fact, the recitation
appears to be nothing more than an intended use. Statements of
intended use in a preamble do not distinguish claimed structural
apparatus from a reference disclosing the structure but not the
intended use. In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 135 USPQ 302 (CCPA
1962). This would appear to apply to claimed method steps as
well as to claimed structural apparatus.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007