Appeal No. 2004-2052
Application 09/509,147
full paragraph on page 2 of the specification. Thus, the
recitations of claim 3 do to some extent further limit claim 1.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 17 and 19, we find nothing intrinsically
wrong with appellants’ recitation of a “fixing means for holding
a plurality of reaction vessels” in independent claims 1 and 11,
and the subsequent recitation in dependent claim 4 that such
fixing means specifically “comprise [sic] a plurality of
sockets,” while in dependent claims 17 and 19 it is recited that
such fixing means “comprises a plurality of holders.” In that
regard, we note that Figures 1-3 of the drawings of the present
application show one form of socket or holder (2), while Figure 4
shows another form of socket/holder (13). As for the recitation
in claim 12 concerning a hotplate operatively connected to the
magnetic stirrer, and of claims 12 and 13 concerning a condenser
unit operatively connected to the adapter block, although we find
the language employed in these claims to be somewhat awkward and
cumbersome, we are of the view that one of ordinary skill in the
art reading the specification and viewing the drawings of the
present application would be reasonably apprised of the fact that
the magnetic stirrer, or magnetic stirrer assembly, includes a
hotplate operatively connected to the magnetic stirrer and a
condenser unit (12) operatively connected to or associated with
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007