Appeal No. 2000-1914
Application No. 08/718,643
overcome thereby. Since the evidence proffered by the
examiner does not support a conclusion of obviousness relative
to appellants’ claims, each of the rejections on appeal must
be reversed.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
1. On page 1 of appellants’ application, U.S. Patents to
Plunkett (3,196,577) and Cody (5,157,090, sic 5,167,090) are
specified. The Plunkett (Fig. 2) and Cody (Fig. 3) patents
each show devices which provide an outflow of air and insect
attractant wherein an inflow appears to be directed near an
upper edge of the outflow outside the device. The examiner
should assess these documents in particular relative to
independent claim 48 (and its dependent claims) under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
2. As acknowledged by appellants in the main brief (page
2), the examiner denied entry of a declaration (letter by
Daniel Kline, Ph.D.) and an exhibit which details sales
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007