Appeal No. 2005-0903
Application 10/170,305
Firstly, we find that as written the claim language
“promoted at the event” only applies to the “service” and not to
the “product”, and as noted, West teaches a product at paragraph
0010.
Secondly, even if the preamble limitation “promoted at the
event” were read to modify the “product”, we find this limitation
to be an intended use of the claimed process steps, i.e., to
process a “promoted” product as opposed to an unpromoted product.
A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where
it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of
a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on
the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or
structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao,
535 F.2d 67, 70, 190 USPQ 15, 17-18 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v.
Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Thirdly, Appellants’ Background of the specification admits
it is known that companies desire to know information about
products promoted at an event. As we noted above, West teaches a
system for seeking information on “products” and “other areas of
sought-after information.”
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007