Appeal No. 1999-1770
Application 08/750,625
The claims on appeal stand finally rejected as
follows:3
(1) Claims 5 and 9, anticipated by Aki, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b);
(2) Claims 5, 6, 8 and 9, unpatentable over Cunningham in view
of Arnt, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a);
(3) Claims 7 and 10 to 15, unpatentable over Cunningham in
view of Arnt and Korchak, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejection (1)
Appellants' only argument as to this rejection is
(brief, page 3):
Aki does not recite [sic: disclose] a
structure wherein there is both a feces
floor and feces board and, therefore, does
not recognize the problem of applying a
pest-control agent in such a structure.
None of the drawings in Aki and none of
Aki's examples of "relatively closed
spaces" (i.e., factories, offices,
3Additional rejections (1) of claims 9 to 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, and (2) of claims 5, 7, 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b), made in the final rejection, have been withdrawn in
the examiner's answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007