Appeal No. 2004-0205 Page 4
Application No. 09/591,167
Weinstein discloses an electronic system for restricting animals to defined areas.
The system utilizes a fixed position transmitter T which transmits an RF signal to a
mobile receiver mounted in the collar on a dog D via an antenna A. The antenna A
may be separate from or an integral part of the transmitter T (column 15, lines 7-12).
Like appellants’ claimed training aid and method, when the receiver detects that the
field strength of the RF signal is below a predetermined level, thereby indicating that the
receiver and the dog wearing the receiver are outside the safe zone S around the
antenna, the dog receives an audible warning signal. When the detected signal level
falls below a second level, thereby indicating that the dog is outside the boundary Z
around the antenna, the dog receives a shock.
Weinstein’s disclosure in column 11, lines 22-46, indicates that Weinstein
contemplates that the transmitter T be connected to the household utility lines.
Weinstein thus lacks disclosure of a “portable” transmitter as called for in appellants’
claims.
Janning discloses a method and apparatus for controlling the whereabouts of an
animal which uses a different approach from that of appellants and Weinstein.
Specifically, Janning’s system uses transmitters 17, such as a portable transmitter worn
by a child 31, which emit RF signals and a receiver/stimulator unit 14 worn by a dog
which administers stimuli to the dog when the receiver detects the RF signal, thereby
indicating that the dog is within a prohibited distance from the transmitter. In other
words, Janning’s system is designed to keep the dog outside a predetermined zone
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007