Appeal No. 1997-2878
Application No. 08/287,505
out the area and scope of the invention...necessary to give
life, meaning
and vitality to the claims” [brief-page 15], citing Kropa v.
Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 88 USPQ 478; 38 CCPA 858 (CCPA 1951). We
disagree.
Generally, a preamble does not limit the claims, and thus
preamble statements of intended use are not claim limitations.
Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal, Ltd., 781 F.2d 861, 868, 228 USPQ
90, 94 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Whether a preamble stating an
intended purpose constitutes a limitation to the claim depends
on whether the language is essential to particularly point out
the invention. Diversitech Corp. v. Century Steps, Inc., 850
F.2d 675, 677-78, 7 USPQ2d 1315, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
We find that the preambles of instant claims 1 and 29 are
merely statements of intended use and are not claim
limitations. The preamble language, relating to a “telephone
network interface” is clearly not essential to particularly
point out the invention since the body of the claims never
even relate back to the language of the preamble. After the
statement of intended use, the claims merely recite a base
member for receiving electrical components in the interior
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007