Appeal No. 95-1528
Application 07/952,684
view of the combined teachings of Frankel et al. (Frankel), U.S.
4,674,490, patented June 23, 1987, and Sheldon et al. (Sheldon),
U.S. 4,932,359, patented June 12, 1990. Claim 39 adequately
represents the subject matter of the claims on appeal and reads:
39. A method of reducing microorganism contamination of
the environment of newly hatched poultry which comprises:
providing a microaerosol apparatus for producing a
microaerosol spray;
providing a disinfectant;
dispensing the disinfectant with the microaerosol apparatus
in a substantially closed chamber in which newly hatched
poultry are disposed substantially continuously from the
time of initial pipping until essentially all the poultry
have exited from their respective eggs.
The examiner’s holding of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 in view of the combined teachings of Frankel and Sheldon
appears to be supported primarily by the examiner’s finding that
Sheldon itself reasonably suggests a process for disinfecting
poultry which comprises dispensing disinfectant “in a
substantially closed chamber in which newly hatched poultry are
disposed” (Claim 39). The examiner states (Examiner’s Answer
(Ans.), p. 5, lines 1-10):
Sheldon et al recognize that “hydrogen peroxide treatment
is believed to increase the quality of chicks hatched and
to reduce the number of chick deaths occurring within a
few days after hatching” (See col. 4, lines 15-18). In
recognition of the benefits of hydrogen peroxide treatment
and that such treatment is safe to eggs and chicks, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007