Appeal No. 96-3395 Page 10
Application No. 08/347,900
explains, ”of the sort recited in claim 1 to transfer the
sample, connect with a purge fluid flow source, deliver the
purge fluid in the requested sequence of flow, and then
provide the fluid flow line.” (Id.) In response, the examiner
offers the following explanation.
[T]he valve element of Spencer does have three
ports, when element 5 is considered to form part of
the valve. Moreover, col. 5, line 3 suggests a
three-way valve. Alternatively, the Sanford and
Morabito references show that purging is
accomplished by using multi-way valves having at
least three ports; given that it would have been
obvious to purge a sampler like that of Spencer, it
would have been readily apparent that a valve
capable of allowing the purging operation should be
incorporated into the sampler. (Examiner’s Answer
at 6.)
During patent examination, pending claims must be given
their broadest reasonable interpretation. Limitations from
the specification are not to be read into the claims. In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed.
Cir. 1993); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541,
550 (CCPA 1969).
Giving claim 1 its broadest reasonable interpretation, we
find that claimed invention does not define over the
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007