Appeal No. 97-2548
Application No. 08/381,545
Brief. As a result of our review, we have determined that none
of the rejections should be sustained. Our reasoning in support
of this conclusion follows.
The Rejection Under Section 102
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention. See
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440,
1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed sub nom.,
Hazeltine Corp. v. RCA Corp., 468 U.S. 1228 (1984).
Claim 1 is directed to a trap system for reducing the entry
of flying insects into a predetermined area which is defined by a
continuous perimeter. The system comprises
a plurality of insect traps . . . positioned at
predetermined spacings around said continuous perimeter
. . . such that said plurality of spaced traps
cooperate to form a barrier for preventing flying
insects from crossing over said perimeter into said
predetermined area.
Claim 1 stands rejected as being anticipated by Dieguez, the
subjects of which are a method and apparatus for formation and
delivery of insect attractant. Dieguez discloses an insect trap,
and teaches that “a series” of them can be “arranged in grid
configuration” (column 5, lines 6 and 7). It is the examiner’s
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007