Appeal No. 2000-2175 Page 7
Application No. 09/268,925
The examiner has interpreted the claim as drawn to the subject
matter of a duct connector of general utility and gave no
meaning to the word "HVAC." On this basis, the examiner
concluded that the Ono patent, which admittedly discloses only
a wiring harness protector, anticipated or rendered obvious the
appellant's claims 1 and 7. The appellant urges that the
examiner erred in failing to limit the claims at issue to a
HVAC plastic duct connector.
"[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a
whole suggests for it." See Bell Communications Research, Inc.
v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620, 34 USPQ2d
1816, 1820 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Where an appellant uses the claim
preamble to recite structural limitations of his claimed
invention, the USPTO and courts give effect to that usage. See
id.; Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868
F.2d 1251, 1257, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Conversely, where an appellant defines a structurally complete
invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state
a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is
not a claim limitation. See Bell Communications, 55 F.3d at
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007