Appeal No. 95-1528
Application 07/952,684
art to continuously dispense disinfectant on newly hatched
poultry after removal from the microaerosol apparatus to
improve the quality of the foul and to reduce the number
of deaths of chicks a few days after hatching.
The examiner was not persuaded by appellants’ contention that
Sheldon teaches away from the claimed invention (Ans., pp. 6-7,
bridging para.):
. . . Sheldon et al do not expressly teach away
from fogging or spraying after the actual time of pipping
and hatching. In fact, Sheldon et al expressly teach the
application of disinfectant to the eggs “within the hatcher
until the actual time of pipping and hatching” (See col. 3,
lines 45-48) and one of ordinary skill would expect that
“hatching” means that the chick has broken out the shell.
The examiner expressly states that Frankel is relied upon “solely
for the use of the microaerosol apparatus for dispensing fluid in
micro-droplet sizes” (Ans., pp. 7-8, bridging sentence). The
examiner points again to Sheldon’s teaching (Ans., p. 8, last
four lines). Ultimately, the examiner finds that the Sheldon’s
method of treating eggs with disinfectant “until the actual time
of pipping and hatching” (See col. 3, lines 45-48) extends until
the actual time the chick has emerged from the shell (Ans., pp.
10-11, bridging para.):
. . . Sheldon et al do teach the application of fluid
to hatched eggs. It is the Examiner’s position that
the term “hatched” suggests that the shell has broken
and the chick has emerged from the shell. In view of
the meaning of the word, “hatched”, the Examiner equates
the hatched egg to the chick such that Sheldon et al
teach the exposure of fluid to eggs and chicks.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007