Appeal No. 1997-3170
Application No. 08/330,597
Contrary to the examiner’s assertion at pages 7 and 9 of
the Answer, the preambular limitation “rinse aid” recited in
claims 1 and 29 is not merely an intended use of the
invention. When the preambular limitation “rinse aid” is read
in light of pages 6-9 of the specification, it gives life and
meaning to the invention as claimed. See, e.g., In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673-74 (Fed.
Cir. 1994); Gerber Garment Technology, Inc. v. Lectra Sys.,
Inc., 916 F.2d 683, 688, 16 USPQ2d 1436, 1441 (Fed. Cir.
1990); Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elect.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007