Appeal No. 2004-0193 Page 7
Application No. 09/165,272
Garment Tech., Inc. v. Lectra Sys., Inc., 916 F.2d 683, 689, 16 USPQ2d 1436, 1441
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (noting that preamble recitations provided antecedent basis for terms
used in body of claim); Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966
(considering the specification's statement of the problem with the prior art); Kropa, 187
F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ at 481 (noting that preamble sets out distinct relationship among
remaining claim elements).
Inspection of the entire record in this case reveals that "article segregating
device" is, in fact, a structural limitation of claim 32 requiring the device to be able to
segregate articles via the claimed decrease in cross-section of the guide member at the
selected location. In our opinion, to read claim 32 indiscriminately to cover all guide
members having a decrease in cross-section at a selected location would be divorced
from reality. Thus, we conclude that the claim preamble in this instance does not
merely state a purpose or intended use for the claimed structure. Rather, those words
do give "life and meaning" and provide further positive limitations to the invention
claimed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007