Appeal No. 2004-0755
Application No. 09/110,109
A term appearing in a preamble is limiting when it is found
to be required to confer meaning on the claim. See Phillips
Petroleum Co. v. Huntsman Polymers Corp., 157 F.3d 866, 872,
48 USPQ2d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “If the claim preamble,
when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations
of the claim, or, if the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give
life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim
preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim.”
Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305,
51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Kropa v. Robie,
187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 480-81 (CCPA 1951). That is,
“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.’” Allen Engineering Corp. v. Bartell
Industries Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346, 63 USPQ2d 1769, 1774 (Fed.
Cir. 2002) (quoting Bell Communications Research, Inc. v.
Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620, 34 USPQ2d 1816,
1820 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
The appellants’ specification states that “[t]his invention
relates generally to evaluation tools, and more particularly to a
system and method for providing access privileges for users in a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007