Appeal No. 1999-0404 Page 13
Application No. 08/580,256
(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). The question of whether a preamble or
introductory clause constitutes a limitation to the claim is a
matter to be determined by the facts of each case in view of
the claimed invention as a whole. Id. Since in independent
claim 1 the limitations following the recitation "[a] heat
transfer pipe used for a condenser and an evaporator in a
refrigerating cycle using a refrigerant mixture" set forth a
description of structure which is self-contained and does not
depend upon the introductory clause for completeness, we are
of the opinion that the recitation "used for a condenser and
an evaporator in a
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007