Appeal No. 1997-3328
Application No. 08/226,605
correlation could be made between the channels in Harrison's
and Verheggen' sampling devices (or the
present sampling device), the combined disclosure of the
references would lead away from the claimed device, not render
it obvious under 35 USC 103" (brief, pages 3-4).
The examiner responds that "all structural features which
distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art must be
set forth in the claims" and "[i]t is the Examiner's position
that resistance to flow, although set forth in claim 20, is
not a structural feature" (answer, page 5).
Appellants respond by again explaining the reduced
resistance to flow feature of claim 20, its advantages and
their conclusion that "[s]ince the references do not suggest a
device having the flow characteristics required by the present
device claims, the present device claims are not properly
rejected over the combined disclosure of the references"
(reply, page 2).
We note that claim 20 is directed to a combination of
elements, with the last element being expressed in means-plus-
function format. As explained in In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007