Appeal No. 97-2548
Application No. 08/381,545
area by determining a perimeter around it, and positioning a
plurality of insect traps at predetermined spacings along the
perimeter, so that the traps cooperate to keep flying insects
from crossing over the perimeter. This claim is rejected as
being unpatentable over Dieguez, which means that the teachings
of the reference would have suggested the claimed invention to
one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
As we have pointed out above with regard to the rejection
under Section 102, the extent of the teachings set out by Dieguez
is merely that a series of traps be arranged in a “grid
configuration.” It is the examiner’s view, however, that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to locate
the traps along a continuous perimeter surrounding the area to be
protected, spaced at such intervals as not to allow insects to
have ingress (Answer, pages 3 and 4). The examiner has not
explained where the suggestion to do so is found, nor has
evidence been presented in support of this position. From our
perspective, therefore, absent the hindsight accorded one who
first viewed the appellants’ disclosure, it would not have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the steps
set forth in claim 4.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007