Appeal No. 2000-0450
Application No. 09/047,048
Also, recitation of a new intended use for an old product does
not make a claim to that old product patentable. Schreiber,
supra.
First considering claim 10, the preamble of this claim
recites "[a]n animal waterer assembly comprising." We do not
consider that weight should be given to this language, because
it does not recite structural limitations of the claimed
invention, but only recites the purpose or intended use, with
a structurally complete invention being defined in the body of
the claim. See Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182
F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165-66 (Fed. Cir. 1999),
citing Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 480-81
(CCPA 1951); also see In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580, 152 USPQ
235, 238 (CCPA 1967). The recitation of an animal waterer
assembly therefore does not patentably distinguish claim 10
from the bus-support clamp disclosed by Matthysse.
The fact that the pipe claimed in claim 10 is recited as
being "for supplying water from a water source to an animal"
does not preclude reading the claimed pipe on the tubing 18 of
Matthysse, since the language "for supplying . . . animal" is
only a statement of intended use which does not distinguish
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007