Appeal No. 2006-1166
Application No. 09/994,257
that the device is a mass flow meter (col. 3, line 65) at least
would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art,
affixing the flow tube’s inlet and outlet to process connections.
Thus, Van der Pol at least would have fairly suggested, to one of
ordinary skill in the art, the method claimed in the appellants’
claim 1. 2
For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible error in
the rejection of the appellants’ claims.
Van der Pol also discloses the temperature sensor recited in2
the appellants’ claim 32 (col. 4, lines 49-53; figure 7).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007