Appeal No. 96-0548
Application 08/161,691
Second, Appellant contends that Claim 54 requires a
battery warning circuit “for a hearing aid,” which Iwanaga
does not teach.
The examiner concedes that Iwanaga does not show use of
the battery warning circuit specifically “for a hearing aid”
as stated in Claim 54's preamble. The examiner contends that
the phrase “for a hearing aid” is merely a statement of
intended use that does not limit the scope of Claim 54.
The preamble of a claim does not limit the scope of the
claim when it merely states a purpose or intended use of the
invention. DeGeorge v. Bernier, 768 F.2d 1318, 1322 n.3, 226
USPQ 758, 761 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Appellant argues that the phrase “for a hearing aid”
should be given limiting effect because it breathes life and
meaning into Claim 54.
We agree with the examiner. The phrase “for a hearing
aid” has no bearing on the structure recited in the body of
Claim 54 and does not breathe life and meaning into the claim.
A user of Claim 54's battery warning circuit may just as well
intend to use the circuit for a hearing aid, an electric
razor, or any other battery-operated implement.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007