Appeal No. 2001-2112
Application No. 09/327,922
Appellant's invention relates to a hunting blind for a dog
which is configured as a waterfowl decoy, which blind will
conceal and restrain a dog, permit selective and rapid release of
the dog when desired and otherwise hide the dog and its movements
from the keen-eyed quarry. Independent claims 1, 21 and 22 are
representative of the subject matter on appeal and a copy of
those claims may be found in the Appendix to appellant's brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal are:
Wieber 2,804,083 Aug. 27, 1957
Huber 3,063,414 Nov. 13, 1962
Powlus 4,581,837 Apr. 15, 1986
Hill 6,016,823 Jan. 25, 2000
(filing date Mar. 17, 1998)
Claims 1 through 5, 7, 9 through 11, 14, 16 through 18 and
20 through 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huber in view of Powlus.2
2
2 While the examiner did not include claim 20 in the
statement of rejection found on page 3 of the answer, we note
that this would appear to be an oversight since the examiner
treats the substance of claim 20 in the body of the rejection and
on page 4 of the answer under the heading "RESPONSE TO ARGUMENT"
indicates that claim 20 is intended to be rejected over the
combination of Huber and Powlus.
22
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007