Appeal No. 96-3395 Page 18
Application No. 08/347,900
Regarding claim 12, the appellant notes that the claim
“calls for a valve body with a valve element having three
ports. The ports in the element rotate and make specific
connections as recited and then sample is input through an
inlet passage and the purge fluid is delivered through a
source blocking valve (i.e., a second valve).” (Appeal Br. at
14.) He alleges, “Spencer does not show this.” (Id.) “The
assumed combination of Sanford into Spencer,” further alleges
the appellant, “does not help because the six-way valve 10,
the six-way valve 11, or the six-way valve 12 do not cooperate
in the fashion necessary to make such a rejection.” (Id.) In
response, the examiner asserts, “it would have involved only
routine skill to make the necessary plumbing connections among
the valve and other components, in order to combine a purging
function with a Spencer-like sampler.” (Examiner’s Answer at
7.)
Giving claim 12 its broadest reasonable interpretation,
we find that claimed invention does not define over the
references. The claim specifies “a sample collection
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007