Appeal No. 2001-0352
Application 08/872,097
For purposes of illustration, we will attempt to read this rejection upon claim 23,
as viewed in the claim chart, which follows:
Claim 23 Elements Rejection
A universal fluid exchanger, comprising: Not discussed
a plurality of reaction vessels; The Examiner does not state whether
there is a disclosure of a plurality of
vessels in Gleave or Panetz.
a reaction vessel support disposed to hold The Examiner states that there is a
the plurality of reaction vessels in a reaction vessel support 23.
preferred orientation;
a plurality of injection ports, each injectionThe Examiner states that Gleave fails to
port including a pressure seal, situated to recite a plurality of injection and
provide access to one of said reaction evacuation ports supported by top and
vessels, the plurality of injection ports bottom plates. We, however, do not see
operable for the injection of liquids into the need for the examiner to account for a
said reaction vessels; support limitation in claim 23, as the claim
includes no such limitation.
a plurality of evacuation ports, each See immediately above.
evacuation port including a pressure seal,
situated to provide access to one of said
reaction vessels, the plurality of
evacuation ports operable for the
evacuation of fluids from said reaction
vessels;
injection and evacuation fittings formed to The Examiner states that injection and
matingly engage said respective injection evacuation fittings 161 and 164 matingly
and evacuation ports and to thereby engage the injection and evacuation ports.
enable the delivery of fluids to the reaction
vessels and the evacuation of fluids from
said reaction vessels; and
an actuator for controlling selectively The Examiner does not state where in
aligning the injection and evacuation ports Gleave or Panetz this feature is found.
of the plurality of reaction vessels and the
injection and evacuation fittings,
respectively.
As can be seen from the chart above, the rejection is deficient in four elements of
the claim. Further, the rejection (see especially the last paragraph) provides little
guidance in how to apply the art to the claims. This merits panel is unsure which
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007