Appeal No. 2006-0242
Application No. 09/920,728
Moberg discloses a syringe pump having a
drive mechanism 120, an occlusion detector
including a force sensor 7’ (see US 4,678,408
incorporated by reference in col. 4, lines
27-30), and the method steps as claimed.
Moberg’s syringe pump is operable in response
to a detected occlusion to reverse the drive
applied to move the plunger along the barrel
sufficiently until the force detected by the
force sensor falls by a predetermined amount
[Answer at 3].
The appellants argue that Moberg does not disclose a force
sensor. In appellants’ view, Moberg does not disclose a force
sensor because its sensor detects an occlusion by monitoring one
or more motor parameters, such as voltage, current, running time,
rotation or linear displacement (column 5, lines 38-42). Also,
in appellants’ view, the essence of the Moberg invention is “to
avoid the need for high pressure limit switches.” Thus, in
appellants’ view, not only is a force sensor not inherent in
Moberg, but Moberg also teaches away from using any force sensor
(Reply Brief at 2).
The appellants’ argument is unpersuasive. During
prosecution, the PTO gives claims their broadest reasonable
meaning in light of the specification. In re Crish, 393 F.3d
1253, 1257, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants’
specification discloses that the force sensor is a structure
that, “responds to the force exerted on the plunger head 36 by
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007