Appeal No. 2005-1305 6
Application No. 10/078,890
threshold is indicative of strength of pull less than that
indicated by the shock threshold. The examiner cites Stapelfeld
as teaching that it was well known in the art to use a sound
stimulus as a warning before resorting to the shock stimulus.
The examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the artisan
to apply a lower threshold than the shock threshold to the sound
transducer of Slater to provide a warning signal before the
corrective shock is produced [answer, pages 3-4].
Appellants argue that Stapelfeld does not teach a separate
sound production threshold that is indicative of a strength of
leash pull that is less than that indicated by the separate shock
threshold. Appellants argue that Stapelfeld teaches a single
variable threshold only. Appellants also argue that the examiner
has provided no factual basis to support the proposed combination
of teachings. Appellants assert that there is no motivation to
combine the threshold structure of Stapelfeld’s invisible fence
invention with Slater’s device for training a dog to walk on a
leash. Finally, appellants argue that Stapelfeld is non-
analogous art because it is directed to an invisible buried fence
which is a divergent field of endeavor from an animal which is
restrained on a leash [brief, pages 5-11].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007