Appeal No. 94-0291
Application 07/490,760
consisting of domestic cats, rodents, raccoons and canids comprising applying to the locus from
which said animals are to be repelled an effective repellent amount of one or more volatile
compounds selected from the group consisting of pulegone and piperitone.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Freeman 3,474,176 Oct. 21, 1969
Inazuka, Chemical Abstracts, Vol. 100, p. 196, Abstract No. 116461p (1984).
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 12, 19 through 23, and 50 through 52 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman alone or in view of Inazuka.
We reverse both rejections primarily for the reasons set forth in the appellants’ Brief
(Paper No. 14) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 16). In addition, we remand this case to the
examiner for further consideration of the scope of the claims.
The subject matter on appeal, as set forth in claim 1 above, is directed to a method of
repelling animals using pulegone and/or piperitone. According to the specification, pulegone and
piperitone are volatile compounds which exhibit a mint-like odor. Specification, p. 1, para. 2.
The examiner’s first rejection is predicated solely on the teachings of Freeman, a
reference which discloses a method of repelling carnivorous animals such as bears, wolves,
coyotes, etc. and small animals such as rats, mice and squirrels. The method involves the use of a
repellent comprising a carrier and an aliphatic or alicyclic ketone containing from about 6 to about
20 carbon atoms, wherein said ketones can be saturated or unsaturated aliphatic or alicylcic
materials. Freeman, col. 1, lines 13-18, and col. 2, lines 4-8. The preferred ketones are ethylbutyl
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007