Appeal No. 95-3830
Application No. 07/942,460
when preset alarm limits have been exceeded is not the same as
calculating a duration of treatment.
Lipps et al., Veech, and Polaschegg '053 do not, in any
combination, make up for the above-noted deficiencies of
Shouldice et al. The examiner is correct, insofar as the
appellants' claimed invention is concerned, that these secondary
references are merely cumulative to Shouldice et al. The
examiner has not relied on these references to show the features
of calculating an actual clearance for a type of impurity,
comparing the calculated actual clearance with a predetermined
clearance, and performing control functions based on the results
of the comparison. We also do not find in these references,
alone, or in combination, a reasonable suggestion for such
features. In the final Office action, the examiner stated merely
that Lipps et al. varies flow rates, Veech controls diffusion,
and Polaschegg '053 shows a well known 3-way valve (Paper No. 9).
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 12, 15-
17, 20-22, 25 and 26 over Shouldice et al., Lipps et al., Veech
and Polaschegg '053 cannot be sustained.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 12, 15-17, 20-22, 25 and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shouldice et al.,
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007