Appeal No. 1999-2070
Application 08/611,899
by the Gray reference. Examiner’s Answer at page 7. The
Examiner continues, “Although the preamble of the claim
recites ‘voltage limiter’, it has not been given any
patentable weight because it merely recites the intended use
of the structure[,] and the body of the claim does not depend
on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the structural
limitations are able to stand alone.” Examiner’s Answer at
page 7.
We note that claim 1 requires the limitation “voltage
limiter”. Gray discloses a distributed amplifier. A voltage
limiter and a distributed amplifier are two very different
devices. Furthermore, the term “voltage limiter” cannot be
construed to include a “distributed amplifier” within its
scope and meaning. Although the term “voltage limiter” is
confined to the claim preamble, we accord the term patentable
weight because it gives meaning to the claim and defines the
claimed invention.
The Federal Circuit has stated that “[a]lthough no
‘litmus test’ exists as to what effect should be accorded to
words contained in a preamble, review of a patent in its
entirety should be made to determine whether the inventors
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007