Appeal No. 96-0882
Application No. 07/885,217
these arguments as directed to the intended use of Gale’s
apparatus and not to the positively recited structure.
We agree with Appellants.
Appellants’ arguments are based on language appearing in the
claim preambles. The question of whether a preamble of intended
purpose constitutes a limitation to the claims is to be
determined on the facts of each case in view of the claimed
invention as a whole. In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754, 4 USPQ2d
1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Perkin-Elmer Corp. v.
Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 896, 221 USPQ 669, 675 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857, 225 USPQ 792 (1984). Review
of the specification as a whole should be made to determine
whether the inventors intended such language to represent an
additional structural limitation or mere introductory language.
In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed.
Cir. 1994).
Upon reviewing the specification as a whole in the present
case we conclude that the inventors intended the language in
question to represent additional limitations and not mere
introductory language. We conclude that the recited apparatus
and methods must produce a lenticular or depth image even if they
are also capable of producing other types of images.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007