Appeal No. 1999-2323
Application No. 08/434519
a granular bait or a paste bait. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner's rejections of claims 2 and 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The last rejection for our review is that of claims 4
through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Wefler in view of Demarest '229. In this instance, it is the
examiner's position with regard to claim 4 that while Wefler
shows a concave receptacle (see col. 4, line 65 - col. 5, line
5), it does not particularly disclose a concave receptacle
having an inverted conical shape as required in appellants'
claim 4. However, in the examiner's view, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wefler
by making the concave receptacle therein of an inverted
conical shape in view of the showing in Demarest '229 of a
reservoir or receptacle (12) having an inverted conical shape,
to thereby better concentrate the bait towards the center of
the receptacle beneath the central opening (22) so that the
bait can be easily accessed by the insects at the central
opening. As for the particular ranges of "interior flooding
angle" set forth in appellants' claims 5 through 7, the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007