Appeal 2007-1164
Application 10/170,131
(d) a display unit coupled to said central-processing unit for
displaying said three-dimensional representation.
The storage medium, working memory, central processing unit, and
display recited in claim 24 are components of any run-of-the-mill computer.
The only potential differences between claim 24 and other computers reside
in the preamble and in the data contained in the storage medium.
The preamble of claim 24 states that the computer is “for producing a
three-dimensional representation of . . . an hepatitis C virus (HCV) NS5B
polypeptide . . . defined by structure coordinates set forth in Table 1.” This
preamble language does not further limit the claim, however, because the
body of the claim states that the storage medium of the claimed computer
contains “data compris[ing] the structure coordinates of Table 1.” “If the
preamble adds no limitations to those in the body of the claim, the preamble
is not itself a claim limitation and is irrelevant to proper construction of the
claim.” IMS Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422,
1434, 54 USPQ2d 1129, 1137 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
The other distinction between the computer of claim 24 and other
computers is the focus of this appeal: does the limitation that the claimed
computer “comprises . . . a data storage material encoded with . . . data
compris[ing] the structure coordinates of Table 1” patentably distinguish the
claimed computer from those in the prior art?
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013