Appeal No. 94-4210
Application 07/932,415
Gross describes from the system defined by Claim 12, i.e., the
preamble here is not "necessary to give life, meaning, and
vitality to the claims." Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152,
88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Here, as in Kropa v. Robie
at 151-152, 88 USPQ at 480-481:
. . . the preamble has been denied the effect of a
limitation where the claim . . . was drawn to a
structure and the portion of the claim following the
preamble was a self-contained description of the
structure not depending for completeness upon the
introductory clause; or where the claim . . . was
drawn to a product and the introductory clause merely
recited a property inherent in the old composition
defined by the remaining part of the claim. In those
cases, the claim . . . apart from the introductory
clause completely defined the subject matter, and the
preamble merely stated a purpose or intended use of
that subject matter.
Accord, In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1403, 181 USPQ 641, 644
(CCPA 1974).
However, we reverse the examiner's rejection of Claim 13
under 35 U.S.C. ~ 102(b) over Gross. As we interpret appellants'
Claim 13, the system requires four conduits: (1) a first conduit
for supplying fluid feedstock into the flow inlet of the first
reactor vessel, (2) a second conduit for introducing gas into the
flow inlet of the first reactor vessel upstream of its catalyst
bed, (3) a third conduit for introducing a gas into the flow
inlet of the second reactor vessel upstream of its catalyst bed,
and (4) a fourth conduit associated with at least one of the gas
conduits for introducing diluent to the gas prior to its
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007