Appeal No. 1997-4234
Application No. 08/423,211
therefore, we have considered the merits of the appeal as to this claim as discussed
below.
Opinion
The rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
In rejecting claim 30, the examiner has relied upon Condit as teaching a method
and apparatus, as represented by Figure 3, for testing refrigerants wherein a sample is
removed from a refrigeration system, via a Schrader valve, into a hollow transparent
tube which contains an acid indicator. (Answer, page 5). Appellants acknowledge that
Condit teaches "a colorimetric pH test device in a hollow transparent member."
(Principal Brief, page 14). However, appellants urge that the Condit device is not
provided with an open end "adapted to fit on a cooling system Schrader value."
(Principal Brief, page 15). Appellants, further, argue that "[t]he test apparatus of Condit
et al. is not a hollow transparent tube open at upstream and downstream ends thereof
with a substantially sheet-like substrate held within the member with the upstream end
of the member being configured to be held temporarily against the service value." (Id.)
However, the test kit of claim 30 does not require the presence of "a substantially
sheet-like substrate" or "a member wherein the upstream end is configured to be held
temporarily against the service value." Further, we do not agree with appellants'
assertion that the transparent tube of Condit (Figure 3) is not open at both ends. In
describing the use of the apparatus of Figure 3, Condit provides that in order "[t]o test a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007