Appeal No. 97-2548
Application No. 08/381,545
position that “[t]he specifics of where the plurality of traps
are located with respect to each other is found to be intended
use” which “fails to impart patentability in an apparatus claim”
(Final Rejection, page 2). We do not agree.
Claim 1 is directed “[a] trap system” (emphasis added).
According to the specifics of the claim, this system comprises a
plurality of traps, which are positioned in a particular
relationship to the area which they are guarding and to each
other. These requirements do not constitute an intended use, but
are the limitations which define the inventive system. As such,
they cannot be ignored. While the reference discloses an insect
trap, and teaches that a plurality of them can be arranged in a
grid configuration, it does not suggest that the grid
configuration be in accordance with the last four lines of the
claim. Therefore, each and every limitation in the claim is not
found in Dieguez, and the reference cannot be considered as
anticipatory of the claimed subject matter.
The rejection of independent claim 1 is not sustained nor,
it follows, is the rejection of dependent claims 2 and 3 on the
same grounds.
Claim 4 is drawn to a method of reducing the entry of flying
insects into an area, and it sets forth the steps of defining the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007