Appeal No. 1999-2556
Application 08/774,848
plurality of Manning’s bait stations in the arrangement
specified by claim 25, the rejection of this claim must fall.
Thus, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) rejection of claim 25 as being unpatentable over
Manning.
Manning is also the primary reference applied in support
of the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1.
Implicitly acknowledging that Manning does not meet the
limitations in this claim requiring the recited device to
include a plurality of containing regions and at least two
odorous substances within the regions with one substance
producing odors which repel certain creatures and another
substance producing other odors which attract desirable
creatures, the examiner concludes (see page 3 in the final
rejection) that Watson would have suggested furnishing same to
the Manning device. Arguably, Watson would have suggested
adding a plurality of containing regions to the Manning
device. There is nothing in the combined teachings of Watson
and Manning, however, which would have suggested the further
addition of at least two odorous substances having the
characteristics called for in claim 1. The examiner’s
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007