Appeal No. 2005-1271
Application No. 09/922,376
Figure 3 of the reference for disclosing a valve mechanism 46
that moves substantially perpendicular to the wall. We note that
appellant's Reply Brief does not address the substance of
Deshaies' Figure 3.
Turning to the § 103 rejection of claims 3 and 12, we fully
concur with the examiner that it would have been obvious for one
of ordinary skill in the art to apply indicia to the device of
Deshaies for any of a number of reasons, including to make the
device more attractive to the buying public.
Regarding the § 103 rejection of claims 4 and 10 over
Deshaies in view of Hass, we are satisfied that it would have
been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to attach a
cord to the device of Deshaies "in order to enable the owner to
carry the device without having to contact the chewed portion of
the device" (page 5 of Final rejection, last paragraph).
Although appellant points out that Deshaies teaches that rope
bones may result in a dog choking on large pieces of rope, this
is certainly not tantamount to a teaching away of attaching any
rope of any material to the device. Furthermore, it is a matter
of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a
known feature along with its attendant disadvantages. As for
appellant's argument that the combination of Deshaies with Hass
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007