Appeal No. 2002-1002
Application No. 08/820,506
Appellant maintains that the claim 14 preamble “define[s]
the essential character of the invention.” Appeal brief, page 4.
Specifically, the language limits claim 14 to “the car wash
implement art” and because of the preamble, claim 14 does not
read on the construction of outdoor carpeting or any other
devices in non-analogous art. Reply brief, paper no. 29,
received July 31, 2001, page 1. Appellant argues that there is
little question that the preamble would be considered a
limitation in any litigation. See Appeal brief, page 5, first
paragraph.
We are in agreement with the examiner that the preamble does
not limit the scope of claim 14. It is well established that
during prosecution, claims are given the broadest reasonable
interpretation possible, consistent with the specification. In
re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir.
1984). The body of claim 14 defines a complete method of making
a surface contact element, such that the preamble language “for
use in . . .” is not necessary to give meaning to the claim. See
Rowe, 112 F.2d at 478, 42 USPQ2d at 1553 (preamble is not a
limitation where the body defines the complete subject matter of
the claimed invention).
Appellants do not dispute the examiner’s findings that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007