CORREA et al. V. ROBERTS et al. - Page 11





            Interference No. 105,019                                                                          
            Correa v. Roberts                                                                                 
                   As is explained by the Federal Circuit in Apple Computer Inc., 234 F.3d at 22, 57          
            USPQ2d at 1063:                                                                                   
                   Language in a claim preamble, however, acts as a claim limitation only when such           
                   language serves to "give meaning to a claim and properly define the invention,"            
                   not when the preamble merely states a purpose or intended use of the                       
                   invention. hi re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir.              
                   1994)(quoting DeGeorize v. Bemier, 768 F.2d 1318, 1322 n.3, 226 USPQ 758,                  
                   764 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). (Emphasis added.)                                               
            As is further explained by the Federal Circuit in Catalina Marketing International v.             
            Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808, 62 USPQ2d 1781, 1784-85 (Fed. Cir. 2002):               
                   In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps,    
                   or if it is "necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality" to the claim. Pitney Bowes,    
                   182 F.3d at 1305. Conversely, a preamble is not limiting "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." Rowe v.               
                   Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 479, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997). (Emphasis                  
                   added.)                                                                                    
            Such is the case here. The body of the claim already defines an absorbent core with a backsheet   
            and a topsheet, which constitutes a pad, usable for absorbing and containing body fluid. The      
            recitation of "sanitary napkW' in the preamble only further specifies the inventor's purpose or   
            intended use for the claimed structure. The structure defined in the body of the claim is not     
            further limited by the recitation of a "sanitary napkin" in the preamble. The circumstance is like
            that in Catalina Marketing International, 289 F.3d at 810, 62 USPQ2d at 1786-87. The invention    
            as defined in the body of the claim has its own life, meaning, and vitality, without regard to the
            intended use specified in the preamble, and treating the intended use as a limitation would       
            effectively impose a method limitation on an apparatus claim without justification.               









Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007