Appeal No. 2004-0176 Page 4
Application No. 09/651,328
animal call with the user’s foot, armpit or by leaning against the animal caller, without
the need to remove hands from the bow, gun or camera to place the animal call in the
mouth. Lamo lacks an air tube having a proximal end into which a user exhales or
inhales and a distal end in pneumatic communication with the air reservoir, as recited in
claims 1 and 8.
Hall discloses a push-button multi-pitch grunt deer call having a mouthpiece on
the end of a tubular section which also houses the sound-producing reed assembly and
an extendable sound projecting portion 24. Hall’s deer call connects the mouthpiece
directly to the animal call or sound producing portion (reed assembly) without an
intervening air reservoir.1
Bean discloses a game call comprising a bellows 102 connected directly to a
reed/pitch control assembly 112 (the sound producing portion) including, inter alia, reed
204 and air tube 202 without any additional intervening air reservoir. In operation, the
bellows 102 is depressed a first distance, thereby creating an airflow over reed 204 and
through air tube 202 causing vibration of reed 204. The pitch of the call is controlled by
the point of contact of detents with the reed 204, with the point of contact being
adjusted with reed pitch adjusting screw 456. The bellows 102 is further depressed so
as to engage top contact end 212 of reed plunger 210, which is caused to move,
thereby flexing and forcing detent 216 out of contact with reed 204 so as to allow reed
1 Notwithstanding the examiner’s determination to the contrary on page 2 of the final rejection, the
sound projecting portion 24 of Hall’s deer call is not a “reservoir” as that term is used by appellant because
it does not retain the air but, rather, simply permits it to pass directly therethrough.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007