Ex Parte Boesch et al - Page 2




            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  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007