Appeal No. 1999-1990 Page 7
Application No. 08/635,599
intended use does not qualify or distinguish the structural
apparatus claimed over the reference. 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. In
re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754, 4 USPQ2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir.
1987).
After reviewing the above-noted precedent and the cases
cited by the examiner and the appellants, we reach the
conclusion that claim 1 is drawn to the spray nozzle, per se.
In other words, claim 1 is directed to the spray nozzle,
itself, and not to its intended use as a water spray nozzle.
We reach this conclusion based upon the language of claim 1
itself. Claim 1 recites "especially for spraying water in
fire prevention systems," "for supplying water," and "so that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007