Appeal No. 98-0009
Application No. 08/538,414
removing a clip from the end of a sausage package,” and we
begin our analysis by pointing out that generally a preamble
does not limit the scope of a claim if it merely states the
invention’s purpose or intended use. See In re Paulsen, 30
F.3d 1475, 31 USPQ2d 1671 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Where the
limitations following the preamble set forth a description of
structure which is self-contained and does not depend upon the
language of the preamble for completeness, as we believe to be
the case here, the preambular recitations do not constitute
limitations of the claims. See Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150,
88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). The purpose of the LaBounty device
is cutting, which is the same purpose as that of the device
which is described in claim 4, and we do not believe that the
LaBounty device would undergo a metamorphosis to a new
apparatus by simply affixing a new named use to it. See Ex
parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). It therefore is our
conclusion that the recitation of “removing a clip from the
end of a sausage package” in the preamble of claim 4 is merely
a statement of intended use which may not be relied upon to
distinguish structure from the prior art. See, for example,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007