Abe et al v. Baldwin - Page 18




               one side of the phase change material are “removably positioned” as claimed.  Note, that Marney                   
               describes that the heater elements are electrically connected in series, whose wires are                          
               terminated on the outer shell 11 of the pouch, thus indicating that the “phase change thermal                     
               storage assemblies” that include the heating elements are not “removably positioned.”  Frohlich                   
               provides no explanation otherwise.  As stated above, it is not enough to merely direct us to                      
               several lines of a passage in a reference, where it is not apparent in the passage that an element is             
               met.  For this reason, Frohlich has failed to set forth a prima facie case of anticipation with                   
               respect to Baldwin claims 30, 36 and 38.  Accordingly, we need not and have not considered                        
               Baldwin’s opposition regarding those claims, or Frohlich’s reply regarding the same claims.                       
                      Baldwin claims 40, 46 and 48                                                                               
                      With respect to Baldwin claims 40, 46 and 48, Frohlich has set forth a prima facie case of                 
               anticipation in view of the Marney reference.  Baldwin claims 40, 46 and 48 are nearly identical                  
               to Baldwin claims 20, 26 and 28, respectively.  The preamble, however, of independent claim 40                    
               recites “a pizza heater for keeping pizza warm during delivery.”  Claim 46 depends on claim 40.                   
               Claim 48 depends on claim 46.  Frohlich argues that the preamble of claim 40 is not a limitation                  
               of the claim because it merely states an intended purpose of the claim (motion at 16).  Indeed,                   
               where a patentee 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.  Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  The                         
               preamble of a claim does not limit the scope of the claim when it merely states a purpose or                      
               intended use of the invention.  In re Paulsen, 30  F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed.                    
               Cir. 1994); Loctite Corp. v. Ultra Seal Ltd., 781 F.2d 861, 868, 228 USPQ 90, 94 (Fed. Cir.                       

                                                            - 18 -                                                               





Page:  Previous  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007