Appeal No. 96-0760
Application No. 08/051,210
incorrect to conclude that the materials which
egress from the sidewalls of the containers in
Myers, namely, the volatiles which the Examiner
characterizes as a second sample cloud, are in any
way generated by the injection of fluid. There are
two separate steps in Myers. In the first step
beverage volatiles are removed by the injection of
the fluid into the container; and in a second
separate step sample volatiles egress from the
sidewalls of the container and are analyzed.
While we essentially agree with appellants' description
of the Myers process, we also agree with the examiner that the
relevant means defined in appealed claim 1 "read on" the Myers
process. When we impart to the claim language its broadest
reasonable interpretation, we concur with the examiner that
Myers' fluid injection into the container meets the claimed
"means for directing fluid into proximity with said item . . .
to displace vapors of contaminants" by initially removing all
volatiles within the container such that "the volatiles from
the contaminant residue are again released" (column 2, lines
23-25). Furthermore, Myers' disclosure of a vacuum to draw a
sample of the released volatiles meets the claimed "means for
evacuating a sample of vapors so displaced . . . by applying
suction thereto."
Hence, we find the examiner's position to be reasonable that
Myers' means for directing fluid effects the displacement of
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007