Appeal No. 2006-1951 Παγε 8
Application No. 10/392,140
a certain vitamin preparation to “a human in need
thereof,” the court held that the claims’ recitation
of a patient or a human “in need” gives life and meaning
to the preamble’s statement of purpose.). Kropa v. Robie,
187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Claim 10 recites “A sink comprising . . ..” The
specification recites (page 1) “[t]his invention relates to a
blank for a sink. More particularly, this invention relates to a
blank for use in constructing a commercial sink.” Inspection of the
written description, claims and figures reveals that “sink” is not a structural limitation of
the claims for the following reasons: First, the body of the claim defines a structurally
complete invention. Second, the “sink” recitation in the preamble does not provide
antecedent basis for any elements in the claim body. Third, nor does the term “sink” set
out any relationship among the elements in the claim body. Because the preamble
does not provide antecedent basis for any of the language in the
body of the claim, and the body of the claim is complete without
the preamble, we find that the preamble term “sink” is an
introduction to the general field of the invention, and that the
preamble fails to breathe life and meaning into the claim. As
such, we find that the term “sink” in the preamble is not a structural limitation of the
claim, but is merely a recitation of the intended use of the claimed structure.
Accordingly, we decline to give patentable weight to the term
“sink” as it appears in the preamble of claim 10.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007