Appeal No. 2005-1305 8
Application No. 10/078,890
other stimulus” [column 1, lines 19-22, emphasis added]. This
section on Stapelfeld clearly teaches that it was well known to
provide an auditory warning before resorting to a shock stimulus
in training a dog. Stapelfeld also discloses that “[w]hen the
animal enters the warning zone, only an auditory signal is
delivered. If the animal continues beyond the warning zone,
however, and proceeds into the avoidance zone, a shock may be
delivered” [column 5, line 67 to column 6, line 3]. Thus, we
agree with the examiner that Stapelfeld clearly teaches using a
sound warning before resorting to a shock stimulus. Appellants’
argument that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of
Stapelfeld and Slater is not convincing. As noted above,
Stapelfeld teaches that an ordered use of sound followed by a
shock teaches the dog to react to the sound stimulus alone so
that the shock stimulus is not required. This provides
sufficient motivation for the artisan to use a lower leash pull
threshold for the sound warning in Slater than the leash pull
threshold for the shock stimulus.
In summary, we have considered each of appellants’ arguments
set forth in the brief, but we are not persuaded by any of these
arguments that the examiner’s rejection is in error. Therefore,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007