Appeal No. 2001-2205
Application 09/228,987
1, the examiner urges that the preamble merely recites the
intended use of the structure therein and that the body of the
claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness since the
structural limitations are able to stand alone.
Appellant argues that the perineal apron and sheet-like
patient covering of Sosebee are unrelated to orthopedics, to
arthroscopic surgery, or the manipulation of a patient’s joint
for visual examination. In that regard, appellant focuses on the
preamble of claim 1 as a limitation and urges that the examiner
has improperly failed to accord the preamble any patentable
weight.
We agree with appellant. After considering the entirety of
appellant’s disclosure and arguments to gain an understanding of
what the inventor actually invented and intended to encompass by
the appealed claims, we are of the view that the preambular
recitations in independent claim 1 do more than merely state a
purpose or intended use of the claimed structure, but instead
serve to provide a definition of the invention and give "life and
meaning" to the claimed subject matter such that it must
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007