Ex Parte JACKSON - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2000-0004                                       Page 2           
          Application No. 08/872,004                                                  

               The appellant's invention relates to a pet collar adapted to           
          receive and store a drinking fluid.  An understanding of the                
          invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1,               
          which appears in the appendix to the appellant's brief.                     
                                    The prior art                                     
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Hasselquist              2,551,673           May   8, 1951                  
          McBride                  3,842,806           Oct. 22, 1974                  
          Harrigan                 4,768,688           Sep.  6, 1988                  
                                   The rejections                                     
               Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as being              
          anticipated by Harrigan.                                                    
               Claims 1 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as              
          being anticipated by McBride.                                               
               Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being           
          unpatentable over McBride.                                                  
               Claims 7 through 10 and 12 through 15 stand rejected under             
          35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over McBride in view of               
          Hasselquist.                                                                
               Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by           
          the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted                    






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007