Appeal No. 2004-1137
Application No. 09/734506
For the reasons aptly advanced by appellant on pages 25-29 of the
brief, we find no basis to conclude that claims 24 through 32 are
indefinite or that they somehow fail to particularly point out
and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards
as the invention. Like appellant, we consider that one of
ordinary skill in the art reading claims 24, 25 and 28 in light
of the specification and the ordinary, accepted definition of the
word "mean" would readily understand that the claimed "mean
temperature value" of the vessel assembly, as used in the above
enumerated claims, is an average temperature value over the
volume of the vessel assembly. Thus, the examiner's rejection of
claims 24 through 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
will not be sustained.
Turning next to the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through
9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Longsworth, we note that Longsworth discloses a sampler for
dispensing and cooling a sample of a fluid (air) withdrawn from a
sampling location and for storing the sample at a selectable
storage temperature. As both appellant and the examiner agree,
Longsworth's sampler includes a sample storage bottle (10) and a
conduit (32) extending from the neck of the bottle to permit
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007