Appeal 2007-0205
Application 09/812,302
2. 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants’ arguments are
focused on various teachings in Su and whether modifying the embodiments
disclosed in Su would have resulted in the claimed subject matter.
Therefore, the issue turns on whether there is a legally sufficient justification
for combining the disclosures of Su, Zimmermann, Lowe, and Allen and if
so, whether the combination of the applied references teaches the claimed
subject matter recited in the claims.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact (FF) are believed to be supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
1. Su relates to materials and methods for monitoring and management
of pests (Abstract; col. 2, ll. 15-17) wherein the location of sensed
termite activity may be associated with a particular sensor or group of
sensors (col. 2, ll. 23-26).
2. Su discloses that the management system provides population
monitoring/capturing and delivery of toxicant to a pest (col.3, ll.
18-25).
3. The monitoring device is interrogated periodically for evidence of
termite infestation (col. 3, ll. 55-56).
4. Su further discloses that the sensors may be arranged in zones so as to
provide more detailed information regarding the precise location of
detected termite activity (col. 4, ll. 9-17).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013