Appeal No. 2004-0205 Page 2 Application No. 09/591,167 detects that the animal and animal-worn receiver are greater than a predetermined distance from the transmitter, by detecting that the signal strength of the signal from the transmitter is below a predetermined level, an audible signal or physical encouragement, such as a shock, is provided to the animal. A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants’ brief. The examiner relied upon the following prior art references in rejecting the appealed claims: Weinstein 5,067,441 Nov. 26, 1991 Janning et al. (Janning) 6,166,643 Dec. 26, 2000 (filed Sep. 30, 1999) Claims 5, 7-9, 13 and 15-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Weinstein in view of Janning. Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 20) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection and to the brief (Paper No. 18) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst. OPINION In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which follow.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007