Appeal No. 97-0172
Application 08/173,560
material other than a liquid beverage", and "vending
selectively from said vending
machine said at least one container containing other than a
liquid beverage."
We do not regard the Pfeiffer and Kangas decisions as
authority for disregarding the recitation in these steps that
the container is filled with other than a liquid beverage.
Neither In re Moreton, 288 F.2d 708, 129 USPQ 227 (CCPA 1961)
nor In re Fong, 288 F.2d 932, 129 USPQ 264 (CCPA 1961), both
cited in Pfeiffer, 135 USPQ at 33, supports such a position;
rather, they hold that, as stated in Moreton, 288 F.2d at 709,
129 USPQ at 228:
since one cannot claim a new use per se, because it
is not among the categories of patentable inventions
specified in 35 U.S.C. 101, it is claimed as a
method, as permitted by 35 U.S.C. 100(b).
In the present case, appellant's claimed invention is, in
effect, a new use for known apparatus, i.e., using a canned
liquid beverage vending machine to vend cans of non-liquid
beverage materials, and has been properly claimed as a method.
We do not consider that in this situation there is any
justification for not following the rule that "all limitations
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007