Appeal No. 2004-0193 Page 6
Application No. 09/165,272
preamble to recite structural limitations of his claimed invention, the USPTO and courts
give effect to that usage. See id.; Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc.,
868 F.2d 1251, 1257, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Conversely, where an
appellant defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the
preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not
a claim limitation. See Bell Communications, 55 F.3d at 620, 34 USPQ2d at 1820;
Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or
mere statements of purpose or use "can be resolved only on review of the entirety of
the application to gain an understanding of what the inventor actually invented and
intended to encompass by the claim. See Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9
USPQ2d at 1966; Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir.
1997). The inquiry involves examination of the entire application record to determine
what invention the appellant intended to define and protect. See Bell Communications,
55 F.3d at 621, 34 USPQ2d at 1821 (looking to patent specification to determine
whether claimed invention includes preamble recitations); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (examining "patent as a whole"); Vaupel
Textilmaschinen KG v. Meccanica Euro Italia SPA, 944 F.2d 870, 880, 20 USPQ2d
1045, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (looking to claims, specification, and drawings); Gerber
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007