Appeal No. 97-4151 Application 08/379,181 construction allows the inclusion of a decorative insert in the space between the transparent walls, and we consider that this disclosure would have motivated one of ordinary skill to provide the container 10 of Phibbs with transparent double walls for the same reason. Such a modification of the Phibbs container would not be the result of impermissible hindsight, as argued by appellant, but would have been suggested by Trombly's disclosure of using double walls with an insert therebetween for the purpose of decoration. In the reply brief, appellant contends that the Phibbs container is not a "tabletop organizer," as recited in the preamble of claims 1 and 11. It is not apparent how such a recitation would limit the structure recited in the claims, being only a statement of intended use , but in any event, the3 con-tainer 10 of Phibbs is a "tabletop organizer" in that it is clearly capable of being placed on a table, and "organizes" items therein in that it contains compartments into which the items are placed, just as appellant's disclosed apparatus does. The preamble generally does not limit the claims. De George v.3 Bernier, 768 F.2d 1318, 1322 n.3, 226 USPQ 758, 761 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1985). 11Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007