Appeal No. 2002-1527 Page 28
Application No. 08/885,817
“[t]he 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) (citing DeGeorge, 768 F.2d at 1322 n.3, 226
USPQ at 761 n.3). “Where . . . the effect of the words [in the preamble] is at best
ambiguous . . . a compelling reason must exist before the language can be given
weight." Arshal v. United States, 621 F.2d 421, 430-31, 208 USPQ 397, 406-07 (Ct. Cl.
1980) (citing In re de Castelet, 562 F.2d 1236, 1244 n.6, 195 USPQ 439, 447 n.6
(CCPA 1977)).
Here, the word "router" appears only in the preamble of claim 22, from which
claim 23 depends. The word merely states a purpose or intended use of the claimed
"method of processing." The bodies of claims 22-24 neither repeat nor reference the
word; instead, the bodies specify steps of the method. Because the language in the
bodies of the claims standing alone is clear and unambiguous, we find no compelling
reason to give the word weight. Therefore, the part of appellants' argument that relies
on the word not persuasive. The remaining, material part of the argument is that "Aziz
does not teach or suggest using a public key or decryption. . . ." (Supp. Appeal Br.
at 8.)
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007