Appeal No. 2005-0944
Application No. 09/941,377
or other odors may be incorporated in the composition.” Column
7, lines 12-14.) According to Cox, the container may be used as
a toy or play article. (Column 1, lines 7-15.) Nothing in Cox
suggests the use of the disclosed container for hunting animals.
Konietzki, the other reference on which the examiner relies
to reject appealed claims 1 and 2, discloses a scent propagation
device having a leak-proof container and a line contained in a
housing that is saturated with liquid concentrate of a scent
indigenous to the environment of the game that is hunted.
(Column 1, lines 51-55.) According to Konietzki, the line may
be drawn out from within the housing as a means of dispersing
the scent. (Column 1, lines 55-57.)
The examiner states that “Cox et al. do not disclose a
scent for a hunter to lure animals” but that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been led to combine the teachings of
Cox and Konietzki to arrive at the subject matter of appealed
claims 1 and 2. (Answer at 3-4.) We disagree.
As a preliminary matter, we note that appealed claim 1
recites “scented chemical composition to attract animals or mask
human scent.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, contrary to the
from plants or animals) or synthetics and a fixative used for
scenting.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007