Opinion ID: 625315
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: An eyeglass device

Text: All of the independent claims of the '545 patent begin with the preamble language, An eyeglass device comprising. The '545 patent Abstract states, An eyeglass device includes a primary and an auxiliary spectacle frames [sic] for supporting lenses. The parties disagree about whether the preamble language constitutes a limitation of the claim so that the claims are limited to accused products comprising both a primary and an auxiliary frame. That argument matters because the body of the two claims at issue in this case recites only an auxiliary frame. If the eyeglass device is properly defined to include both the primary and auxiliary frames, and if the preamble language is limiting, as the defendants argue, a party would not be liable for infringement for making or selling the auxiliary frame alone. While we agree that the term eyeglass device is defined in the patent to refer generally to the combination of a primary and an auxiliary frame, we do not agree with the defendants that the term eyeglass device adds a limitation to any of the claims. This court has recognized that as a general rule preamble language is not treated as limiting. See Allen Eng'g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed.Cir.2002). In this case, the defendants have not pointed to anything that persuades us that this case falls outside of that general rule, and in fact all of the considerations that ordinarily inform the decision whether to treat preamble language as limiting support the conclusion that the preamble in this case does not limit the claims. First, most of the claims of the '545 patent are drawn to both a primary spectacle frame and an auxiliary spectacle frame. One claim is drawn only to the primary frame, and three claims are drawn only to the auxiliary frame. The fact that among numerous claims to the combination of primary and auxiliary frames the patentee chose to include some claims limited to auxiliary frames and some limited to primary frames supports the inference that the claims drawn to primary or auxiliary frames alone are not intended, by operation of the preamble, to require the presence of the other frame as well. Moreover, the preamble language in the '545 patent is not needed to give meaning to the claims, which recite structurally complete inventions without the preamble language. And nothing in the prosecution history suggests that the preamble language was considered necessary to the patentability of the claims. Under those circumstances, this court has found the preamble language not to be limiting. See Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358-59 (Fed.Cir.2010); Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed.Cir.2002). Absent any countervailing reason to hold that the preamble language in this case is limiting, we conclude that it should not be construed as limiting in this case.