Appeal Number: 2006-0923
Application Number: 10/622,157
OPINION
The rejections are affirmed as to claims 12, 13, 15-17
and 32, and reversed as to claims 14, 33 and 34.
Claims 12, 13, 15-17 and 32
The appellant indicates that claims 12, 13, 15-17 and 32
stand or fall together (brief, page 4). Although an additional
reference is applied in the rejection of claim 32, the appellant
does not provide a substantive argument as to the separate
patentability of that claim (brief, pages 7-8). We therefore
limit our discussion to one of claims 12, 13, 15-17 and 32,
i.e., claim 12. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
The only element of claim 12 that the appellant argues is
missing from Mollhagen is a squeeze chute that remains
stationary in a horizontal plane with respect to the set of
wheels (brief, page 7).
Mollhagen’s squeeze chute (112, figure 3)1 is mounted on an
extension base (108) in communication with the open back
end (76) of a back enclosure (3) (col. 7, lines 53-56). When
Mollhagen’s animal working device is switched from its transport
configuration to its working configuration a front enclosure (2)
1 Mollhagen’s item 112 is not mentioned in the specification. However,
Mollhagen’s figure 3 and the discussion of the squeeze chute in Mollhagen’s
specification (col. 7, lines 53-53) indicate that item 112 is a squeeze
chute, and the appellant refers to that item as a squeeze chute (brief,
page 7).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007