Appeal No. 1999-2323
Application No. 08/434519
recited insect bait station include, or specifically be
capable of use with, granular bait.
In light of the foregoing, since we find clear
correspondence between the structure set forth in claims 1 and
8 through 11 on appeal and that seen in Wefler Figures 5 and
6, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 8
through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based on Wefler.
Regarding the examiner's rejection of claim 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wefler and
Moore, and the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Wefler and Morris, we note that
claim 2 sets forth that the bait of claim 1 is a "granular
bait" and that claim 3 sets forth that the bait of claim 1 is
a "paste bait." While it is true that Moore and Morris,
respectively, provide evidence that granular and paste baits
were known in the art, we must agree with appellants that
there is no apparent reason in the applied prior art as to why
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants'
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007