Appeal No. 2004-1887
Application No. 09/430,469
contains no teaching whatsoever that the aforementioned output
constitutes a digital signal indicative of the gas species. See
the first full paragraph on page 14 of the Sittler reference. In
fact, Sittler’s use of the indefinite article “an” in referring to
this output quite clearly reflects that this output is distinct
from the previously recited digital signal.
For these reasons and those set forth in the brief, it is
apparent that we cannot sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of
claims 1-4, 16, 19 and 21-25 as being anticipated by Sittler.
The Section 102 rejection based on GCX
Our study of the application file record including the
advisory Action mailed June 21, 2002 reflects that the Examiner
regards the manual control feature disclosed on page 3-382 of GCX
as satisfying the appealed independent claim 1 requirement “wherein
the process analyzer is operably coupled to the sample handling
system to modify at least one sample handling parameter based upon
diagnostic information related to the sample handling system.”
2 Notwithstanding her explicit reliance on page 3-38, the
Examiner, for some unknown reason, has referred only to pages 1-1
through 3-2 in listing this reference on page 4 of the answer.
Despite this limited page referral, we have included page 3-38 in
our assessment of the GCX reference.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007