Appeal No. 96-2739
Application 08/185,320
that Shepard "does not teach or suggest an arbitrarily located
encoded information region with encoded information
representing location information for field data." Appellants
point out that the ID number of Shepard, which describes the
location of field data, appears in a "predetermined specific
position", Shepard at column 5, lines 22 through 24.
We note that Appellants' claim 17 recites “at an
unspecified arbitrary location an encoded information region,
the information in said region including a complete encoded
description of the location of the field data." This language
is located in the preamble of the claim. Although no "litmus
test" exists as to what effect should be accorded to words
contained in a preamble, review of a patent in its entirety
should be made to determine whether the inventors intended
such language to represent an additional structural limitation
or mere introductory language. Corning Glass Works v.
Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257, 9 USPQ2d
1962, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754,
4 USPQ2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Further, we note that
determination of preamble language if further limiting turns
on whether the language "breathes life
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007