Appeal No. 1999-2323
Application No. 08/434519
January 19, 1999) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, this panel of
the Board has given careful consideration to appellants'
specification and claims, to the applied prior art references,
and to the respective positions articulated by appellants and
the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have reached
the determinations which follow.
Looking first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and
8 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based on Wefler, we are
in agreement with the examiner's position as set forth on
pages 4 through 6 of the answer, wherein the examiner has
specifically read the rejected claims on Wefler's insect bait
station seen in Figures 5 and 6 of the patent. Like the
examiner, we note that appellants' argument in their brief
(pages 7-9) that Wefler does not use or disclose granular
bait, is of no moment since there is nothing in appellants'
claims 1 and 8 through 11 on appeal which requires that the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007