Appeal No. 2004-2032
Application No. 09/729,498
In column 6, Lewis teaches that:
“[t]he control means may allow a second
fluid to flow into the chamber when a first
fluid is still present in the chamber if the
first and second fluids are compatible... [but]
will not allow a second fluid to enter the
chamber when a first fluid is still present if
the two fluids are incompatible with each
other, when properly programmed...” [lines 44-
52].
We do not find in this or any other disclosure of the Lewis patent
any teaching that it is patentee’s control means itself which
determines the compatibility versus incompatibility of the fluids.
On the contrary, the aforequoted recitation “when properly
programmed” (column 6, line 52) clearly indicates that it is the
programmer/operator of Lewis’ apparatus who performs the function
and step of determining whether fluids are compatible or
incompatible with one another. Furthermore, this indication is
reinforced by patentee’s teaching at line 64 in column 30 through
line 7 in column 32 wherein patentee teaches that normally a
rinse will not be conducted unless the next fluid to be pumped is
incompatible with the previous fluid (see lines 6-10 in column 31)
and that an operator of the device may indicate that a rinse is
required when information is being entered into the device (see
lines 62-64 in column 31).
In light of the foregoing, it is reasonably apparent that, in
Lewis’s invention, the function and step of determining whether
fluids are compatible with one another are not performed by
patentee’s control means as the Examiner believes but instead are
performed by an operator when programming the control means. The
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007