Appeal No. 1999-1987 Page 9
Application No. 08/400,129
epitome of obviousness." Jones v. Hardy, 727 F.2d 1524, 1529,
220 USPQ 1021, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See also In re
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982);
In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA
1974).
In this case, it is our view that claims 1 to 3, are
anticipated by Albert under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). In that
regard, claim 1 reads on Albert as follows: Batting practice
apparatus for repeated, rotationally-swinging presentation of
a simulated ball to a practicing batter , said apparatus 3
3The statement of purpose or intended use of the
invention set forth in the preamble is not a claim limitation
since the appellant has defined a complete invention in the
claim body. See Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d
1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cited in Pitney Bowes Inc. v.
Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161,
1165-66 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135
USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). There is an extensive body of
precedent on the question of whether a statement in a claim of
purpose or intended use constitutes a limitation for purposes
of patentability. See generally Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150,
155-59, 88 USPQ 478, 483-87 (CCPA 1951) and the authority
cited therein, and cases compiled in 2 Chisum, Patents §
8.06[1][d] (1991). Such statements often, although not
necessarily, appear in the claim's preamble. See In re
Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754, 4 USPQ2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir.
1987).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007