Appeal No. 96-3395 Page 22
Application No. 08/347,900
Regarding claims 8-11 and 18-22, the appellant argues
that the claims “are patentably distinct because the cited
references, either individually or in combination, do not
recite methodology for partially filling a sample container
with sample liquid and filling the remaining dead space with
inert purge gas.” (Appeal Br. at 18.) In response, the
examiner asserts, “[w]hen a purging function is added to a
sampler, as described above, this means that the purge gas
will follow the sample through the conduits and into any space
remaining above the sample in the sample container ....”
(Examiner’s Answer at 8.)
We cannot find that Spencer, Sanford, Morabito, and
Seiden teach or would have suggested steps c and e of claim 8
or steps b and d of claim 18. Step c of claim 8 recites
“operating said valve to an alternate position so that a
sample of specified size is delivered through said valve and
is admitted into said sample container ....” Similarly, step
b of claim 18 recites “delivering a first predetermined volume
of a purge gas through a purge gas source blocking valve to
said outlet ....”
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007