Appeal Number: 2006-2761
Application Number: 10/806,223
The appellants’ invention relates to a method and device for attracting and trapping or
otherwise disabling insects and more particularly to a counterflow device that uses an insect
attractant in an outflow from the trap (specification at page 1). An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of the claims which are appended to the brief.
PRIOR ART
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims are:
Waters 4,506,473 Mar. 26, 1985
Cheshire, Jr. 5,255,468 Oct. 26, 1993
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 to 123 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Cheshire in view of Waters.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the appellants
regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (mailed April
21, 2006) for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellants’ brief (filed June 24,
2005) and reply brief (filed May 10, 2006) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to appellants’
specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations that follow.
1 We note that the examiner has not listed the rejection made in the final rejection of claims 1 to 123 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting in the answer. Therefore, we assume that the
examiner has withdrawn this rejection in view of the terminal disclaimer filed on November 4, 2004.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013