Appeal No. 2001-0226
Application 09/009,122
of claims 4 through 6 which depend from claim 1, as being
anticipated by Gagliano.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 2 and 3 as being
unpatentable over Gagliano
Claims 2 and 3 depend from claim 1. In addition to not
disclosing the subject matter recited in the parent claim,
Gagliano would not have suggested such to one of ordinary skill
in the art. It follows that the same is true with regard to the
subject matter recited in dependent claims 2 and 3.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 2 and 3 as being unpatentable over Gagliano.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 11 as being
anticipated by Craig
Craig discloses an electric insect trap comprising a drum,
a motor 20 for constantly rotating the drum, electric wires 13
and 14 spirally wound on the drum, a pan 23 beneath the drum, and
a brush 25 arranged to sweep insects from the drum into the pan.
Independent claim 11 recites an insect killing apparatus
comprising, inter alia, a main body and “means for imparting
periodic motion to said main body to simulate a living creature,
whereby said main body moves from a first position to a second
position different from said first position.” In the examiner’s
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007