Appeal No. 95-4589
Application 08/042,888
to provide for a more compact device, thus fairly suggesting
to the artisan to enclose the circuit of McComb within the
housing in order to achieve these self-evident advantages.
As to the recitation of “safety” in the preamble of
representative claim 1, it is well settled that a preamble
generally does not limit the scope of a claim if it merely
states the invention's purpose or intended use. In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir.
1994)). While no litmus test can be given with respect to
when the introductory words of a claim constitute a statement
of purpose for a device or are, in themselves, additional
structural limitations of a claim (Corning Glass Works v.
Sumitomo Electric U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257, 9 USPQ2d
1962, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989)), in a case such as this where the
light of McComb has the capability of functioning as a
“safety” light (indeed, it appears to us that most lights in
general have the capability of broadly functioning as a
“safety” light), we are of the opinion that the recitation of
a safety light in the preamble of representative claim 1 is
merely a statement of intended purpose or use which may not be
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007