Appeal No. 1997-4234
Application No. 08/423,211
Claims 2-15, 17-26, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of
obviousness the examiner relies upon Condit, Kramer and/or Evers.
We affirm the rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e), enter a new ground of
rejection of claims 1-27 and 29 under the provisions of 37 CFR §1.196(b), and vacate the
remaining rejections of claims 1-27 and 29.
Background
The appellants describe the invention at page 11 of the specification as being
directed to an accurate, simple, and inexpensive acid test device which can sample the
refrigerant vapor from the existing service valves or the recovery tanks of a refrigeration
unit to determine the acid level in the refrigerant and thus provide an indication of the
condition of the refrigerant and of the refrigeration system.
Discussion
In considering the issues raised by this appeal we have carefully considered the
position of the examiner as set forth in the Examiner's Answer of June 4, 1997 (Paper
No. 10) and the appellants' position as set forth in the Appeal Brief filed March 27, 1997
(Paper No. 9). In reviewing the record before us, we have determined that a material
issue of claim interpretation is present which must be resolved before the merits of the
parties' positions relating to claims 1-27 and 29 can be properly
considered. Accordingly, we take the following action. In so doing, we emphasis that
we are not indicating that the claims are patentable over the prior art relied upon by the
examiner. Claim 30 is not subject to the same criticism as to claim interpretation and,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007