Appeal No. 1996-3493
Application No. 08/451,697
According to appellants, “none [of Bergna, Abrams or Beck] teach or suggest the property of
attrition resistance (as specifically defined in the Appellants’ specification) nor the manner in which
attrition resistance can be attained for such catalyst compositions” “comprised of one or more specific
acidic zeolites and one or more specific particulate binders” (emphasis in the original, brief, page 6 first
paragraph).
Generally, the preamble of a claim does not limit the scope of a claim when it merely recites 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), unless it breathes life and meaning into the claim, i.e., is
“essential to point out the invention defined by the claim.” Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88
USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). The effect of the preamble language can only be determined by
reviewing the entirety of the appellants’ disclosure to gain an understanding of what the appellants
actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim. See Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo
Elect. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Here, the specification makes clear that appellants’ invention is directed to “an improvement in
... [zeolite catalysts useful for the production of methylamines] whereby they are blended with one or
more microparticulate binders during formation, which renders the catalyst particles attrition resistant
and therefore suitable for use in fluidized bed reactor processes” (page 1, lines 13-17). Moreover, “for
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007