Appeal No. 2005-2606 Παγε 5
Application No. 10/077,718
intended such language to represent additional limitations or mere introductory
language. See, e.g., In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673-74
(Fed. Cir. 1994)(citing Corning Glass Works v. Suitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d
1251, 1257, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
In the instant case, our review of the appellants' specification indicates that
the word "clamping mechanism" in the preamble was intended to be directed to a
mechanism that clamp a branch while the branch is being cut by a saw. For instance,
appellants' specification states:
. . . it is an object to provide a hand held reciprocating saw
which allows the user to hold the saw with one hand without
the need to hold the object to be cut with the other hand in
order to prevent an oscillating movement of the object while
it is cut [specification at page 5].
. . . the user only has to position the saw such that the
branch can be held between support member and clamping
arm [specification at page 6].
In addition, it is clear from a complete reading of appellants' specification, that the
appellants intended the term "clamping mechanism" in claim 22 to be more than
introductory language. In addition, the term "clamping arm" is positively recited in the
body of the claim. In view of the foregoing, it is our view that the term "clamping
mechanism" in the preamble breaths life and meaning into the claim and is not
language of intended use.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007