Appeal Number: 2006-0923
Application Number: 10/622,157
is pulled along rollers away from the back enclosure (col. 6,
lines 49-52). Thus, as indicated by a comparison of Mollhagen’s
figures 2 and 3, during the switching between the transport and
working configurations the squeeze chute is moved horizontally
with respect to the wheels of the trailer on which the animal
working device is mounted.
The appellant’s claim 33 requires that the position of the
squeeze chute relative to the tongue of the trailer is the same
for both treating animals using the squeeze chute and relocation
of the trailer. Claim 12, however, does not require that the
squeeze chute remains stationary in a horizontal plane with
respect to the set of wheels both when treating animals and
relocating the trailer. Hence, in view of claim 33, claim 12
reasonably can be more broadly interpreted as encompassing a
stationary position of the squeeze chute relative to the wheels
during either treatment of animals or relocation of the trailer.
Mollhagen’s squeeze chute remains stationary with respect
to the trailer’s wheels in one position during treatment of
animals (figure 3) and in a different position during relocation
of the trailer (figure 2). Since claim 12 is open to those
positions being different, we are not convinced of reversible
error in the examiner’s rejection of that claim. Accordingly,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007