Appeal No. 96-2179 Page 17
Application 07/613,466
G. Anticipation of claims 1, 2, 12, 13, 25-27,
29, 34, 38-41, 49-51 and 58 by Nappholz
34. We note at the outset that the meaning of claims 1
and 38, and their dependent claims 2, 12, 13, and 39-41, are
sufficiently indefinite to test these claims against the
reference. The point of contention is the nature of the rate
control parameter, which is precisely the point at which these
claims are unclear.
35. We agree with Appellants that Nappholz does not
teach the closed-loop control means of claim 25 or the
adjusting step of claim 49. (Paper 18 at 28.) We note that
these claims are written in means-plus-function and step-plus-
function formats, respectively. The examiner argues that
Nappholz's minute volume parameter satisfies the rate control
parameter provisions of the claims, but provides no analysis
of how minute volume would be used with the disclosed
structures or acts. We find that Nappholz does not expressly
or inherently teach the claimed structures or acts.
Consequently, we reverse this rejection of claims 25 and 49,
and of their dependent claims 26, 27, 29, 34, 50, 51, and 58.
H. The teachings of Nappholz and Callaghan '900
36. The examiner relies on Nappholz and Callaghan '900
or Mumford, to reject the remaining claims. As we have
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007