Appeal No. 2003-1289 Page 6
Application No. 09/028,796
itself. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967). A
statement of intended use does not qualify or distinguish the structural apparatus
claimed over a reference. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305
(CCPA 1962). There is an extensive body of precedent on the question of whether a
statement in a claim of purpose or intended use constitutes a limitation for purposes of
patentability. See generally Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 155-59, 88 USPQ 478,
483-87 (CCPA 1951) and the authority cited therein, and cases compiled in 2 Chisum,
Patents § 8.06[1][d] (1991).
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 23
and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wible is affirmed.
The anticipation rejection based on Whitney
We sustain the rejection of claims 22 to 24, 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Whitney.
Whitney's invention relates to improvements in wreath rests for coffins and
caskets. Figure 1 is a top plan of a coffin with the head cap removed, showing the
position of the wreath rest when closed. Figure 2 is a longitudinal section of the head of
a coffin showing the wreath rest closed and the cap on. Figure 3 a similar section
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007