Appeal No. 2005-1305 7
Application No. 10/078,890
The examiner responds that Slater teaches using both a sound
warning and a shock stimulus. The examiner notes that Stapelfeld
was cited only to show that it was known to apply a sound
stimulus before the shock stimulus. The examiner notes that
Stapelfeld clearly teaches that an auditory signal is known to be
a warning and that only after a warning is issued would the
corrective shock be delivered. The examiner also responds that
Stapelfeld provides the motivation for using two thresholds in
Slater, and that Stapelfeld is analogous art because it is
directed to the common problem of training animals in their
behavior [answer, pages 4-6].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 10
and 12 for essentially the reasons argued by the examiner in the
answer. First, we agree with the examiner that Stapelfeld is
analogous art with respect to Slater and the claimed invention
because Stapelfeld relates to animal training which is the
problem addressed by the claimed invention. Second, we disagree
with appellants’ argument that Stapelfeld fails to disclose the
use of two thresholds. In the background section of the patent,
Stapelfeld discloses that “[t]his can be preceded by a buzzing
sound or other auditory warning. In time, the dog learns to turn
back simply on hearing the auditory warning and without receiving
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007