Appeal No. 2006-0180 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/369,343
should be made to determine whether the inventors intended such language to
represent an additional structural limitation or mere introductory language. Id. Further,
when limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive an antecedent basis from
the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed
invention. Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339, 66 USPQ 1271,
1276 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
In this instance, the positive recitation in claim 1 of a set of primary rails
connected to the operating room and in claim 2 of a set of primary rails connected to the
ceiling of the operating room relies on the preamble for antecedent basis and for
definition of the operating room and the ceiling. Moreover, appellant's specification
repeatedly informs us that the invention is directed toward a support apparatus for
mobilizing and storing a plurality of overhead instruments in an operating room to
manage the useable space in a medical operating room to facilitate surgical procedures
in an operating room.
In light of all of the above, we conclude, unlike the examiner, that claims 1 and 2
are directed to an apparatus in an operating room as set forth in the preamble, having a
structural ceiling and an operating table located therein, with the set of primary rails
required to be connected to the operating room. In other words, the claims are, in
essence, directed to the combination of the apparatus and the operating room.1 As
1 Nevertheless, the inconsistency between the preambles of claims 1 and 2 and the recitation in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007