Opinion ID: 3066478
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Preamble to claim 1

Text: The district court held that certain preamble language in claim 1 is not a limitation of claim 1. District Court Opinion at 7. Specifically, it found the preamble language “[a] syste[m] for controlling the selection and dispensing of product coupons at a plurality of remote terminals” to be unnecessary to the understanding of the terms or limitations in the body of claim 1. Id. Catalina challenges the district court’s ruling on this issue, arguing that the preamble phrase is a limitation because it is crucial to understanding what it is the ’041 patent inventors invented. Specifically, Catalina urges that the preamble be construed as a limitation requiring “controlling the selection and dispensing of product coupons at a plurality of remote terminals.” Furthermore, it asks this court to find the corresponding structure to be a host central processing unit, a modem, and a plurality of remote terminals. A claim’s preamble can be considered a claim limitation when it is “necessary to give life, meaning and vitality” to the claim. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). On the other hand, if the preamble “offers no distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, but rather merely states . . . the purpose or intended use of the invention,” then the preamble cannot be read as a limitation on a claim. Id. As we stated in our previous decision in this case: [A] preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. Conversely, a preamble is not limiting 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. Catalina I, 289 F.3d at 808 (internal quotations and citations omitted). 03-1548, -1627 10 Reading the preamble to claim 1, it is clear it is intended to summarize the invention and its purpose and not to give any information that is indispensable to understanding the invention recited by claim 1. Specifically, the preamble does not offer any details, structure or description that would aid one of skill in the art in understanding what is being covered by the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, we find that the preamble language in claim 1 of the ’041 patent is not a limitation of claim 1. Consequently, the district court’s determination that the claim 1 preamble phrase “A syste[m] for controlling the selection and dispensing of product coupons at a plurality of remote terminals” is not a limitation on claim 1 is upheld.