Appeal No. 2002-2232
Application 09/174,032
Claim 37 as written incorporates two different methods of
online detection; the localization of partial discharge events
as set forth in elements (a) through (d) and the determining of
type of fault as set forth in steps (a), (e), and (f). No
particular order of the two different methods is required,
although it appears necessary that step (a) be followed by step
(b) then step (c) then step (d) for localization, while step (a)
be followed by step (e) then step (f) for determining the type
of fault.
Generally, the preamble does not limit the claims.
DeGeorge v. Bernier, 768 F.2d 1318, 1322 n.3, 226 USPQ 758, 764
n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1985). However, the preamble may be limiting
“when the claim drafter chooses to use both the preamble and the
body to define the subject matter of the claimed invention.”
Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications
Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620, 34 USPQ2d 1816, 1820 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
If the preamble is “necessary to give life, meaning and
vitality” to the claim, then the claim preamble should be
construed as limiting. Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88
USPQ 478, 480-81 (CCPA 1951). This is determined “on the facts
of each case in view of the claimed invention as a whole.” In
re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754, 4 USPQ2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir.
1987); see also Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007