Appeal 2006-3386
Application 10/448,569
specifically chosen to kill the rodents, is delivered for a second period of time.
The object of the invention of claims 3 and 4 is to immobilize the rodents so that
they remain within their hiding places for application of the second gaseous
mixture.
McQueen does not teach or suggest this two step process. Instead,
McQueen teaches a system to flush pests out of cracks in surfaces so that the pests
can be vacuumed into a recovery bag (Findings of Fact 1-3). McQueen teaches
that after the pests and their eggs have been vacuumed up, a residual is then
sprayed onto the treatment surface (Finding of Fact 4). McQueen does not teach or
suggest applying a gaseous mixture to render the pests unconscious. Rather,
McQueen desires the opposite result, viz., that the pests will be left capable of
movement so that they will leave their hiding places to be suctioned into the
recovery bag. As such, we see no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in McQueen
that would have led one having ordinary skill in the art to the system or method
recited in claims 3 and 4.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3 and 4 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of McQueen.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013