Ex Parte Lorenzi - Page 4




                         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).                                                                                  
                   The preamble of appellant’s claim 1 recites a “device for moving books” and the            
            balance of the claim recites, inter alia, “a transport device vertically transporting the         
            books.”  The active limitation “vertically transporting the books” does not make sense            
            without a positive recitation of books.  Thus, in this case, the preamble must be read as          
            positively reciting books, as well as the device for moving them, and, because this               
            recitation is necessary to give life, meaning and vitality to the limitation “a transport         
            device vertically transporting the books,” must further be construed as if in the balance of      
            the claim.  In other words, claim 1, when read as a whole, includes a positive recitation of      
            books vertically transported on the transport device.                                             
                   Having determined that claim 1 positively recites books vertically transported on          
            the transport device, we now turn to the second issue.  The second issue in this appeal is        
            whether Gram teaches or suggests books vertically transported on a transport device.              
                   Gram, while arguably capable of vertically transporting books, albeit perhaps              
            preferably not books that have been freshly bound using adhesive, on carriers 3, does not         
            in fact disclose books being transported on the carriers.  Gram indicates that the disclosed      
            apparatus is “for processing articles, e.g. for cooling or freezing such articles or goods”       
            (col. 1, ll. 8-10) and refers to US. Pat. No. 3,993,189 (issued to Khoylian et al. on             
            November 23, 1976) for an example of an apparatus of this kind (col. 1, ll. 20-21).  The          
            Khoylian patent describes the processing conveyor disclosed therein as related to                 
            “automatic processing, such as food processing, and particularly to a novel conveying             




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013