Appeal No. 2001-0595
Application No. 09/079,293
While it is true that the apparatus resulting from the
examiner's combination of Callahan and Stevens is not "for
providing tangible evidence of intercessory prayers offered on
behalf of a recipient" as set forth in the preamble of
appellant's claim 1, we view the preamble recitation of claim
1 as being merely directed to the intended use of the
apparatus and thus conclude that it is not effective to
distinguish appellant's claimed apparatus from the apparatus
resulting from the examiner's combination of Callahan and
Stevens. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ
641, 644 (CCPA 1974);
In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967);
and In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 493, 135 USPQ 302, 306 (CCPA
1962). Moreover, we observe that, in our view, the apparatus
resulting from the combined teachings of Callahan and Stevens
structurally corresponds to the apparatus set forth in
appellant's claim 1 on appeal and, although not disclosed for
the use noted above, has the capability of being used in the
manner claimed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007