Appeal No. 2000-1703
Application No. 08/963,545
Where the claim preamble is used to give “life and meaning”
and provide further positive limitations of the claimed
invention, effect should be given to that usage. See Corning
Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257,
9 USPQ2d 1962, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Conversely, “a preamble
generally is not limiting when the claim body describes a
structurally complete invention such that deletion of the
preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the
claimed invention.” Catalina Marketing International, Inc. v.
Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808, 62 USPQ2d 1781, 1785
(Fed. Cir. 2002), citing IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation,
Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434, 54 USPQ2d 1129, 1136-37 (Fed. Cir.
2000) (preamble phrase "control apparatus" does not limit claim
scope where it merely gives a name to the structurally complete
invention). See also Bell Communications Research, Inc. v.
Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620, 34 USPQ2d 1816,
1820 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(the preamble is not a claim limitation
where the claim body completely defines the claimed subject
matter and the preamble is used only to state a purpose or
intended use for the claimed invention), citing Kropa v. Robie,
187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Furthermore,
whether a preamble of intended purpose constitutes a limitation
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007