Appeal 2007-0130
Application 10/688,584
1 is not related to a microwave dryer but rather to an extruder. In our view,
2 the recitation in claim 1 related to a microwave dryer is intended use
3 language. The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not
4 germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself. In re Casey, 370
5 F.2d 576, 580, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967). A statement of intended
6 use does not qualify or distinguish the structural apparatus claimed over the
7 reference. In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA
8 1962). There is an extensive body of precedent on the question of whether a
9 statement in a claim of purpose or intended use constitutes a limitation for
10 purposes of patentability. See generally Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150,
11 155-59, 88 USPQ 478, 483-87 (CCPA 1951) and the authority cited therein,
12 and cases compiled in 2 Chisum, Patents § 8.06[1][d] (1991). Such
13 statements often, although not necessarily, appear in the claim's preamble.
14 In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754, 4 USPQ2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
15 The Chauffoureaux device includes all the structure of the Appellants’ claim
16 1 and therefore is capable of operating as a microwave dryer.
17 We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that
18 Chauffoureaux does not disclose an unloading zone. It is clear that the
19 material processed in Chauffoureaux is unloaded. The fact that the material
20 is unloaded through a die does not change the fact that the material is
21 unloaded and the zone through which it is unloaded is an unloading zone. In
22 addition, we have found that Chauffoureaux does disclose a reciprocating
23 piston ram.
24 Appellants’ argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
25 modify the Chauffoureaux device so as to include a plurality of microwave
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013