Appeal No. 2001-2112
Application No. 09/327,922
claims 1, 21 and 22 on appeal would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103
based on the combined teachings of Powlus and Hill. Powlus
discloses a blind that is capable of housing a dog typically used
by a hunter to retrieve fowl shot by the hunter, which blind is
configured as, and has the exterior markings and coloration of, a
waterfowl. The blind of Powlus appears to correspond exactly to
that set forth in appellant's independent claims on appeal,
except for the presence of a door located in the chest region of
the waterfowl configuration as recited in appellant's claims 1,
21 and 22 on appeal. Powlus shows an access door on the back of
the goose decoy therein. However, we note that Hill discloses a
blind that is camouflaged and configured as a cylindrical hay
bale, wherein the blind has an access door (86) on the top of the
bale and access doors (14, 16) at either end of the bale. As
noted in Hill, col.4, lines 9-26, one simply opens either of the
right or left doors (14, 16) to gain access to the blind and once
positioned in the blind secures the doors (14 and/or 16) closed;
when prepared to fire the hunter's movement of beginning to stand
is sufficient effort to cause the spring loaded door (86) to open
upwardly. Thus, it would appear that the combined teachings of
Powlus and Hill would have been suggestive to one of ordinary
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007