Appeal No. 95-1528
Application 07/952,684
We hold that the examiner clearly erred in finding that Sheldon
describes or reasonably suggests a process for disinfecting
poultry which comprises dispensing disinfectant “in a
substantially closed chamber in which newly hatched poultry are
disposed.” Not being able to determine how much the examiner’s
erroneous finding influenced the conclusion of unpatentability
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the combined teachings of
Frankel and Sheldon, we are constrained to reverse the examiner’s
decision and remand the case for further consideration in light
of our decision and remarks.
Sheldon states (col. 1, l. 67, to col. 2, l. 2; emphasis
added):
The present invention comprises exposing hatchery
eggs to a solution of hydrogen peroxide prior to actual
hatching in order to disinfect and to significantly
increase the hatchability of the eggs treated.
We read Sheldon’s statement at col. 3, l. 45-48, in conjunction
with his other statements at col. 2, l. 26-41; col. 2, l. 65-68;
and col. 3, l. 10-32. Moreover, at col. 4, l. 23-26, Sheldon
states:
Finally, and very importantly, the exposure of
hatchery eggs to hydrogen peroxide prior to hatching
has quite unexpectedly been found to significantly
increase the hatchability of the eggs treated.
Most instructive of what Sheldon’s teaching would have meant to a
person having ordinary skill in the art, however, is Sheldon’s
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007