Appeal No. 2005-1271
Application No. 09/922,376
In addition, claims 5 and 13 stand rejected under § 103 as being
unpatentable over Deshaies in view of Huettner.
In accordance with the grouping of claims set forth at
page 9 of the principal brief, claims 3 and 12 stand or fall
together, as do claims 4 and 10, and claims 5 and 13.
We have carefully considered each of the arguments advanced
by appellant. However, we are in complete agreement with the
examiner's reasoned and thorough analysis and application of the
prior art, as well as her cogent disposition of the arguments
raised by appellant. Accordingly, we will adopt the examiner's
reasoning as our own in sustaining the rejections of record, and
we add the following for emphasis only.
We consider first the examiner's rejection under § 102 over
Deshaies. As explained by the examiner, Deshaies, like
appellant, discloses an apparatus having a reservoir defined by a
wall having a fill aperture and valves therein for allowing the
ingress and egress of a liquid. The valves of Deshaies have
pressure actuated opening means, as presently claimed, such that
when pressure is exerted by the bite of a dog liquid exits the
reservoir through the valves. Also, Deshaies expressly teaches
that in order to attract an animal, such as a dog, the hollow
portion of the device "can be shaped to look like a dog bone [or]
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007