Appeal Number: 2006-0923
Application Number: 10/622,157
we affirm the rejection of claim 12 and claims 13, 15-17 and 32
that stand or fall therewith.
Claim 14
Claim 14, which depends from claim 12, requires first,
second and third gates that are proximate to the front of the
trailer and are proximate, respectively, to a first side, a
second side and the center of the trailer, and which may be
selectively arranged to allow egress of an animal off one of the
first and second sides of the trailer after the animal exits the
squeeze chute.
The examiner argues that “Mollhagen discloses a first
gate 49, a second gate 63 and a third gate 102” (final rejection
mailed April 26, 2004, page 3). Mollhagen’s gates 49 and 102
are at, respectively, the front of the front enclosure and the
rear of the back enclosure (figures 1-3). Gate 63 is at the
front of the back enclosure and, therefore, is at the front of
the trailer in the transport position and in the middle of the
trailer in the animal treatment position (figures 2, 3 and 5).
Gates 102 (one on each side of the rear of the back enclosure
(figure 4)) never are proximate to the front of the trailer as
required by the appellant’s claim 14.
The examiner argues that the selective arrangement
limitation in claim 14 is a method limitation rather than an
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007