Appeal No. 96-3395 Page 14
Application No. 08/347,900
purge it of any remaining sample. Therefore, we find that the
references would have suggested the elements of claim 1.
As aforementioned regarding the grouping of the claims,
claims 4-6 stand or fall with claim 1. Therefore, we find
that the references would have suggested the elements of claim
4-6.
Regarding claim 2, the appellant alleges, “the Spencer
construction does not set out the filter connection
specifically described in claim 2.” (Appeal Br. at 12.) In
response, the examiner observes, “filter 56 appears capable of
precluding escape of overflow from the sample container.
Please see col. 5, line 44; col. 2, line 67; and Fig. 4.”
(Examiner’s Answer at 7.)
Giving claim 2 its broadest reasonable interpretation, we
find that claimed invention does not define over the
references. The claim specifies “a flow line from said
sample receiving container into a filter to enable overflow
from said sample container precluding discharge to the
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007