Appeal No. 94-1098
Application 07/712,581
including temperature and carrier flow rate, must be identical,
or at least within the operational levels, used in developing the
standard curves so that the comparison is independent of these
variables.
In our view, calibrating Stenger’s analyzer in this way
would not result in the claimed method. Independent claim 1 is
directed to a method of generating a stream containing a
preselected concentration of vapor of a chemical comprising the
steps of, inter alia, providing said chemical on a substrate in a
column, controlling temperature in the column to provide a
concentration of said vapor, and passing a carrier gas through
the column to mix with the vapor and form the steam containing
the preselected concentration of vapor. Independent claim 25
contains similar language. Consistent with appellants’
disclosure, we interpret this claim language as requiring the5
vapor of the claims to be a gaseous or vapor phase of the very
5See, for example, page 5, lines 7-11, of the specification
wherein it is stated that “The vapor generator 10 includes a
plurality of porous glass beads 12, coated with a liquid or solid
chemical substance, which may be volatilized to produce the
desired vapor.” Also see page 11, lines 18-22, of the
specification wherein it is stated that “It has been found that
maintaining the transfer line within the range of approximately
100 to 150EC provides satisfactory results when the vapor mixture
comprises nitrogen and TNT vapors.”
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007