Appeal No. 2000-1961
Application 08/840,200
nothing in the body of the claim gives life and breath to this
limitation. The body of the claim does not define what is meant
by "self-contained" and the term, by itself, does not suggest a
unitary assembly in a housing. To the extent the term is given
weight, "self-contained" could refer to the fact that the monitor
is a distinct entity. The "integrated" check valve testing
system of Hill is considered "self-contained" in this broad sense
because it is an "integrated" system (see title and abstract).
Appellants provide no reasons why the examiner erred in
concluding that it would have been obvious to employ the
techniques of Hill (comparison of on-line operating
characteristics to baseline data which was determined on-line) to
a steam trap, as required to contest an obviousness rejection.
See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iv) (the arguments shall explain why the
references do not suggest the claimed subject matter). It
appears that appellants rely on a misunderstanding of the claim
dependency in not arguing the details of claim 15. Because
appellants have not shown error in the examiner's rejection, the
rejection of claim 15 is sustained.
Claim 14: Hill in view of McDonald, or Hale in view of McDonald,
or Arcella in view of McDonald
Claim 14 refers to the invention of claim 1 "further
comprising a long-term processor for updating said baseline data
- 23 -
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007