Appeal No. 2003-1391
Application No. 09/165,772
preamble simply states the intended use or purpose of the
invention, it does not limit the scope of the claim where, as here,
the preamble does not provide antecedents for ensuing claim terms
and does not limit the claim accordingly. See CR Bard Inc. v. M3
Systems Inc., 157 F.3d 1340, 1350, 48 USPQ2d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir.
1998).
Second, appellants argue that Basile shows a leak detection
system based on sensing an appreciable transfer of mass in contrast
to appellants’ invention in which changes in fuel vapor mass are
assumed negligible (Brief, page 6). This argument is not
persuasive for reasons adequately stated by the examiner (Answer,
paragraph bridging pages 5-6), namely that contrary to appellants’
argument Basile does not disclose or suggest a large magnitude of
mass transfer. Furthermore, we note that mass transfer is not
recited in claim 1 on appeal.
Third, appellants argue that Basile is not directed to a leak
detection system that includes the computation of compensation
(Brief, pages 6-7). This argument is not persuasive since Basile
discloses a leak detection system that includes the computation of
a calculated pressure, which is then compared to the sensed
pressure at an earlier time and temperature (Answer, pages 5-6;
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007