Appeal No. 1997-3288
Application 08/529,303
Sellers, et al. in view of Shearman does not teach or
suggest Applicant's claimed steps of defining control
points, issuing a chemical from a control point, sensing
the use of the chemical at the use points, sensing
disposal of the chemical at disposal points and adjusting
the inventory in accordance with the sensing steps.
The Examiner recognizes this as the main argument (EA8-9)
and points to parts of Sellers and Shearman which are relied
on to show the limitations (EA9). Since this was the first
time the correspondence between the claim limitations and the
references was provided, Appellant submitted a Reply Brief
which argues that the references do not teach or suggest any
of the limitations.
We have thoroughly reviewed the references, paying
particular attention to those portions of the references
relied upon by the Examiner and to Appellant's arguments in
the Brief and the Reply Brief. We find that Sellers discloses
what can be broadly considered a "control point" and the step
of "allowing ... one of said operators to issue the chemical
from said inventory for the use in the process" at column 11,
line 52 to column 12, line 14 of the specification, especially
the part at column 12, lines 11-14, which discusses that the
system will not allow an owner to remove any more from the
tank than is owned. The "at least one of said control points"
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007