AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Narayanan et al 10990995 - (D) GRIMES 103 103 INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PURDY, KYLE A
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1758 Ex Parte Casali et al 12972007 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 102 Streets & Steele - Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. DAM, DUSTIN Q
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Ungureanu et al 12669393 - (D) NEW 103 CURATOLO SIDOTI CO., LPA RICCI, CRAIG D
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the language of the preamble is a limitation on the claim. “[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it.” Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In instances where a patentee uses the claim preamble to recite structural limitations of his claimed invention, the PTO and courts give effect to that usage. Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Conversely, where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation. Id. (citing Bell Communications, 55 F.3d at 620; Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150 (1951).
Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 34 USPQ2d 1816 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 2111.02 , 2163
Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.02 , 2303
Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 9 USPQ2d 1962 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 2111.02 , 2163
Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951) 707.07(f) , 2111.02
