Appeal No. 2002-2211
Application No. 09/304,393
Examiner’s rejection over Fabo. However, we reverse the rejection over
Brassington.
OPINION
In a case such as this, we must analyze the claimed language to determine the
scope and meaning of each contested limitation. See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d
1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The preamble elements in a
Jepson-type claim allows Appellants to use the preamble to recite “elements or steps
of the claimed invention which are conventional or known.” Kegel Co. v. AMF
Bowling, Inc., 127 F.3d 1420, 1426, 44 USPQ2d 1123, 1127(Fed. Cir. 1997)
(quoting 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(e) (1996)). The fact that the Appellants have chosen the
Jepson form of the claim evidences the intention “to use the preamble to define, in
part, the structural elements of his claimed invention.” Kegel, 127 F.3d at 1426, 44
USPQ2d at 1127. Thus, the preamble is a limitation in a Jepson-type claim. See
Epcon Gas Systems Inc. v. Bauer Compressors Inc., 279 F3d 1022, 1029, 61
USPQ2d 1470, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776
F.2d 309, 315, 227 USPQ 766, 770 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Fabo describes a device that adheres a first substrate to a second substrate.
Specifically, Fabo describes a flexible carrier sheet (1) embodied within two
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007