Appeal No. 1999-1770
Application 08/750,625
are not disclosed by Cunningham, nor would they have been
obvious in view of Arnt or Korchak.
As a result, we will sustain the rejection of claims
7, 10, 12 and 13, but not of claims 11, 14 and 15. As with
rejection (2) of claims 5 and 9, supra, the sustained
rejection of claims 7, 10, 12 and 13 will be designated a new
ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
Rejection Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b), claims 14 and 15 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Cunningham
in view of Korchak and APA. The Korchak reference is applied
as in rejection (3) above.
Claim 14 recites that the henhouse is a chick type,
multistage henhouse. Since the APA discloses that the known
henhouse is "usually constructed according to the style of
chick type multistage windowless henhouse" (page 1, lines 11
to 13), it would have been obvious to apply the Cunningham
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007