Appeal No. 97-2725
Application 08/138,456
With regard to the rejection of claim 22 under the second
paragraph of § 112, we agree with the examiner that the
preamble of this claim is directed to the “content identifier”
per se in that the subject matter claimed as appellant’s
invention is recited to be “[a] content identifier,” not the
combination of the content identifier with other elements,
such as the storage tank or the storage tank inlet. However,
the examiner’s cropped quotation of the claim language as set
forth on page 4 of the answer conveys the erroneous impression
that the body of the claim is directed to the combination of
the content identifier and the storage tank. In this regard,
claim 22 does not positively recite that the storage tank is
located adjacent to the indicator means. Instead, the claim
merely calls for an indicator means for “unequivocally [sic,
uniquely?] identifying the specific type of petroleum product
to be delivered to an adjacently located storage tank.” This
limitation does not positively define the tank as being in
combination with the content identifier.
Accordingly, we cannot agree with the examiner that the
scope of the body of claim 22 is inconsistent with the scope
of the preamble of the claim. As compared with claim 1, claim
22 is directed to the content identifier per se, not the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007