Appeal No. 2004-1887
Application No. 09/430,469
diagnostic information, which is incorrect). Secondly, we perceive
no rational basis for the Examiner’s proposition that the manual
control taught by GCX would result in the process analyzer being
“operably coupled to the sample handling system to modify at least
one sample handling parameter based upon diagnostic information
related to the sample handling system” as required by the
Appellant’s independent claim 1. Thirdly, while it is true that,
during examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (see
In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir.
2000)), the Examiner’s interpretation of the aforementioned claim 1
requirement as being anticipated by the manual control feature
of GCX is neither reasonable nor consistent with the subject
specification.
As for appealed independent claim 19, the Examiner has not
identified, and we do not independently find, any disclosure in the
GCX reference which satisfies the here claimed requirement “wherein
the process analyzer is operably coupled to the sample handling
system to communicate digitally with the sample handling system.”
Indeed, the answer contains no specific discussion concerning the
requirements of this claim or of any other claim on appeal beyond
the aforequoted remarks by the Examiner on pages 9-10. It
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007