Appeal No. 96-3395 Page 16
Application No. 08/347,900
Seiden teach or would have suggested delivering a flow of
purge gas through a control valve and a flow line. Spencer,
furthermore, teaches a vented needle 5. Col. 1, ll. 33-36.
Sampling fluid flows through the needle into the sample bottle
9. Col. 4, ll. 30-41. When the teachings of the references
are combined, the needle would deliver the purge gas flow to
the sample bottle. Therefore, we find that the references
would have suggested the elements of claim 3.
Regarding claim 7, the appellant argues, “the apparatus
of claim 7 calls for a valve with valve element having four
ports. The ports are connected (1) with a purge gas flow
line, (2) a sample source, (3) a sample container, (4) a
filter for excess sample.” (Appeal Br. at 13.) He asserts,
“[t]hat structure is not shown by any of the cited references,
or by any combination of the cited references.” (Id.)
Claims are not interpreted in a vacuum but are part of
and are read in light of the specification. Slimfold Mfg. Co.
v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116, 1 USPQ2d 1563,
1566 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Apart from claim 7, the specification
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007