Appeal No. 2002-0220 Page 4
Application No. 08/964,496
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the Taylor patent, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations which follow.
Independent claim 1 recites, in the preamble thereof, a tool for supporting and
preventing sudden downward movement of a vehicle door window including a glass
panel disposed for free-moving vertical movement in a window channel bounded by
inner and outer door panels and, in the body of the claim, “first and second slides ... for
inserting a predetermined distance into the window channel between the glass panel
and one of said door panels” (emphasis ours). Independent claim 9, likewise, recites,
in its preamble, a window-support tool for automobile door windows disposed for
vertical movement in a linear channel in the automobile door and, in the body thereof,
“a pair of slides ... for engaging the linear channel” wherein the window is evenly
supported in the channel and prevented from sudden downward movement.
In this instance, the preambles of claims 1 and 9 help define what is meant by
the “window channel” and “linear channel” referred to in the body of the claims and,
thus, impart structural limitations to the “slides” recited in the body of the claims.2 In
particular, the recited slides must be capable of being inserted into the window channel
2 In so doing, the preambles of claims 1 and 9 are “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to
the claim. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165-
66 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007