Appeal No. 2001-1740
Application 08/902,466
of producing a sound which can be heard by game animals, is
manifestly unreasonable. Moreover, the record does not
contain any evidence that the Schofield apparatus is
inherently capable of functioning as a game call, i.e.,
capable of imitating the natural sounds of game animals.
Thus, Schofield does not disclose each and every element of
the invention set forth in claims 62, 69 and 83.
Consequently, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of independent claims 62, 69 and 83, and
dependent claims 63 through 65 and 70 through 72, as being by
Schofield.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 76 through 79,
84 and 85 as being unpatentable over Schofield in view of
Davis
Independent claim 76, from which claims 77 through 79
depend, is similar to independent claims 62, 69 and 83 in that
it recites a “game call apparatus” comprising, inter alia, a
“game call.” Claims 84 and 85 depend from independent claim
83. In short, Schofield’s deficiencies relative to the “game
call apparatus” and “game call” limitations in the independent
claims finds no cure in Davis’ disclosure of a gutter cleaning
nozzle.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007