Ex Parte Chamberlain - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2005-1271                                                        
          Application No. 09/922,376                                                  

          means, said valves under pressure allowing liquid to exit said              
          reservoir, said valves when not under pressure denying egress               
          from said reservoir; an outer layer enclosing said wall, said               
          outer layer being shaped to resemble a food item.                           
              Appellant further states that "[c]laim 1 is actually deleted            
          and therefore simply needs to be cancelled" (page 10 of principal           
          brief, second sentence).                                                    
              The examiner relies upon the following references in the                
          rejections of the appealed claims:                                          
          Deshaies                     5,944,516              Aug. 31, 1999           
          Huettner et al.              6,092,489              Jul. 25, 2000           
          (Huettner)                                                                  
          Hass                         5,961,406              Oct.  5, 1999           
               Appellant's claimed invention is directed to an apparatus or           
          device for alleviating the thirst of a pet, such as a dog.  An              
          outer wall defines a reservoir for a liquid, such as water, and             
          the wall contains pressure actuated valves which allow the liquid           
          to exit the reservoir when pressure is exerted by, for example,             
          the bite of a dog.  An outer layer encloses the wall and is                 
          shaped to resemble a food item, such as a bone.                             
               Appealed claims 1, 2, 7, 8 and 11 stand rejected under                 
          35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Deshaies.  Claims 3              
          and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being                     
          unpatentable over Deshaies, while claims 4 and 10 stand rejected            
          under § 103 as being unpatentable over Deshaies in view of Hass.            
                                         -2-                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007