Appeal No. 1999-1770
Application 08/750,625
warehouses, etc.) can contain both a feces
floor and a feces board. The apparatus of
Aki, therefore, cannot be said to be
positioned above a feces board.
This argument is not well taken because, as the examiner
points out on page 8 of the answer, neither claim 5 nor claim
9 recites both a feces floor and a feces board, but rather,
both claims recite that the apparatus "is positioned above the
higher of a feces floor or a feces board" (emphasis added),
and claim 9 also recites applying a pest-control agent "to a
feces floor or a feces board" (emphasis added). Since the
feces board and feces
floor are claimed in the alternative, and the cattle sheds
disclosed by Aki at col. 3, line 15, would have a feces floor,
claims 5 and 9 are anticipated. In this regard, we note that
for anticipation of claims, all that is required is that the
claims "read on" something disclosed in a prior art reference.
Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354,
1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522 (Fed. Cir. 1998), cert. denied,
119 S.Ct. 874 (1999). Here, the spraying apparatus of Aki is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007