Appeal No. 1998-3128 Page 9
Application No. 08/624,874
1322 n.3, 226 USPQ 758, 761 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In
particular, “[t]he preamble of a claim does not limit the
scope of the claim when it merely states a purpose or intended
use of the invention.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31
USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing DeGeorge, 768 F.2d
at 1322 n.3, 226 USPQ at 761 n.3). “Where ... the effect of
the words [in the preamble] is at best ambiguous ... a
compelling reason must exist before the language can be given
weight." Arshal v. United States, 621 F.2d 421, 430-31, 208
USPQ 397, 406-07 (Ct. Cl. 1980) (citing In re de Castelet, 562
F.2d 1236, 1244 n.6, 195 USPQ 439, 447 n.6 (CCPA 1977)).
Here, the expression "each having a multi-tasking
capability" is found only in the preamble of representative
claim 1. It merely states a purpose or intended use of the
“system for selectively transferring information between a
central computer and a plurality of remotely located computer-
numerical-control (CNC) machine controllers ....” The body of
the claim neither repeats nor references the multi-tasking
capability. Because the language in the body of the claim
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007