Appeal No. 2002-0726 Page 4
Application No. 08/606,762
examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to modify the Carle trap by additionally placing an insect luring means in the
cartridge member, in view of the teaching of Rutherford. The appellant argues in
rebuttal that there exists no suggestion which would have motivated one of ordinary skill
in the art to do so. We find ourselves in agreement with the appellant. Our reasoning
follows.
The Carle insect trap comprises a hollow housing 1 within the bottom of which is
a hollow cartridge member 17 in the form of a drawer. A conical member 41 provides
an opening in one side of the housing. A suction fan 37 is so positioned as to draw
insects into the trap through the conical member and thereafter through the attached
horizontal conduit 43 and vertical conduit 52, and then into cartridge 17 (see Figure 3).
To lure insects to the trap and into the suction zone of the fan, Carle positions a light
bulb 49 in the conical opening. Thus, while Carle discloses an insect luring means, it is
not positioned in the cartridge, as is required by the appellant’s claims.
Rutherford discloses an insect trap comprising an inverted truncated cone 8 to
the top of which is attached a funnel 13 terminating in a spout 12 that extends into the
top of the truncated cone. The bottom of the truncated cone is closed by a floor
member in the form of a removable screen 2. The screen is covered with sticky paper
to which the trapped insects become adhered, and a quantity of bait 6 also is provided
in a bait holder located on the screen. Thus, insects attracted to the bait pass
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007