Appeal 2007-0787
Application 10/689,230
1 Applicant argues that Claim 1 requires that the shank be attached to a
2 door. 18 However, the claim has no such requirement. Claim 1 specifies a
3 lever “for a door” and that the shank is “to be attached” to a door. These
4 statements merely describe the context of the lever assembly and do not
5 impart any essential structure to the claimed combination of handle and
6 shank. Language that merely states the purpose or intended use of an
7 invention is generally not treated as limiting the scope of the claim.
8 Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d
9 1339, 1345, 65 USPQ2d 1961, 1964-65 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The combination
10 of a shank and handle as set forth in the claim describes a structurally
11 complete invention.
12 Applicant also argues that the function of the lever assembly (the
13 combination of a shank and handle) to be attached to a door is different than
14 the function of Tokarz’s lever assembly as part of a faucet.19 Applicant
15 further argues that the intended use limitations require a distinct structure
16 necessary to attach the lever assembly to a door.20 However, the “functions”
17 merely reflect the intended use of the shank and handle combination and add
18 nothing to the required structure. Nor does the statement of intended use
19 import undefined additional structure into the claim. The only required
20 structure relates to the shank and handle.
21 We express no view as to the patentability of Claims 2-11 which we
22 leave to the further consideration of the Examiner in light of the new ground
23 of rejection.
18 Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br., 1.
19 Appeal Br. 4.
20 Reply Br. 1.
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013