Opinion ID: 780799
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Preamble of Claim 1.

Text: 48 The district court also construed the preamble to be a limitation on the claims because it provides information about when the method steps are to be performed in accordance with the invention that is not otherwise described in the method steps of the claim. Altiris, 160 F.Supp.2d at 1284. As construed by the court, the preamble language gaining control prior to the normal boot sequence requires the setting step to come before the booting normally step. Id. The court based this conclusion on the same statements in the specification mentioned above. 49 Altiris argues that the court improperly used the preamble as a limitation because it only summarizes the requirement of the claims that the testing step be performed before the booting normally step. We agree. It is well settled that if the body of the claim sets out the complete invention, and the preamble is not necessary to give life, meaning and vitality to the claim, then the preamble is of no significance to claim construction because it cannot be said to constitute or explain a claim limitation. Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1310, 64 USPQ2d 1832, 1837 (Fed.Cir.2002) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Whether a preamble stating the purpose and context of the invention constitutes a limitation of the claimed process is determined on the facts of each case in light of the overall form of the claim, and the invention as described in the specification and illuminated in the prosecution history. Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials Am., Inc., 98 F.3d 1563, 1572-73, 40 USPQ2d 1481, 1488 (Fed.Cir.1996). 50 Applying these principles, we hold that the preamble is not a limitation dictating the order of the steps. In light of our determination above that gaining control prior to the normal boot sequence can be accomplished even if the setting step is not performed prior to the booting normally step, we share Altiris' view that the preamble does not require the setting step to be performed in any particular order. Thus, under this proper view of gaining control prior to the normal boot sequence, the preamble merely recites a purpose of the invention and does not add anything to the body of the claims. The body of the claims, by using conditional language in the booting normally step (if said testing step indicates a normal boot sequence) indicates that the testing step must occur before the computer boots normally. It is the result of this testing step that determines whether the automation boot sequence, and thus the transferring control step, occurs, or whether the booting normally step occurs. Thus, because the claim language indicates that the testing step always occurs prior to the booting normally step and also that the testing step determines whether the automation boot sequence occurs, the body of the claim itself indicates that the invention will gain[ ] control prior to the normal boot sequence. Thus, the court erred in holding the preamble to be necessary to and hence a limitation on the claim. 51