Appeal No. 2003-0930 Page 3
Application No. 09/550,555
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the Betzen and Zimmerman patents, and to
the respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Claim 3 under appeal is drawn to a shock-producing, animal repelling and
training device similar to the deer repellent device set forth in claim 1 of the Betzen
patent. Claim 4 under appeal is drawn to a method of repelling and training target
animals similar to the method of repelling deer set forth in claim 5 of the Betzen patent.
However, unlike claims 1 and 5 of the Betzen patent, claims 3 and 4 under appeal
additionally recite an electrode separator to hold the crisscrossing electrodes in place
while preventing contact between the electrodes, while allowing full exposure of the
electrodes to the target animal whereby the crisscrossing electrodes are held in position
by the electrode separator while being insulated from each other.
To account for this difference in the rejection before us in this appeal, the
examiner (final rejection, pp. 2-3) relies upon the patent to Zimmerman. Zimmerman
discloses an insulator for supporting an electric wire on a fence post having an
improved design to prevent the insulator from slipping out from under a staple used to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007