Appeal No. 2005-0015 Page 5
Application No. 09/788,274
590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199
USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978)).
With respect to claim 4, the only limitation argued by appellant to be lacking
appears to be “a circuit adapted to respond [to a change in6] temperature of said leaked
fluid when said change occurs at a rate indicative of contact with leaked liquid whose
temperature approaches that of a human body.” While the Ketchum patent does not
disclose the use of a rate of change detector, claim 4 before us on appeal does not
require a rate of change detector. It is apparent from the disclosure of Ketchum that the
circuit 37 and indicators 40 respond to a temperature change when such change occurs
at a rate indicative of contact with leaked liquid whose temperature approaches that of a
human body, thereby meeting the language of the claim, notwithstanding that Ketchum
is not concerned with and does not measure the rate of temperature change. We thus
sustain the rejection of claim 4.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is affirmed.
6 Although the clean copy of claim 4 (page 3 of Paper No. 8) as amended and entered reads, in
the last paragraph, “a circuit adapted to respond to change a temperature ...,” it is apparent from the
version of amended claim 4 with markings to show changes made (page 9 of Paper No. 8) that appellant
intended to retain the language “a circuit adapted to respond to a change in temperature.” Accordingly, for
purposes of this appeal, we have interpreted claim 4 as appellant clearly intended it to read. In the event
of further prosecution of this application, however, action should be taken by either the examiner or
appellant to formally correct this inconsistency.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007