Appeal Number: 2006-0923
Application Number: 10/622,157
apparatus limitation (answer, page 4). The claim requires that
the three gates are structurally configured such that they are
capable of being 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. That claim
requirement is a structural limitation of the apparatus. The
only gates on the side of Mollhagen’s animal working device are
gates 102 (figure 4), and those gates are disclosed as providing
access to animals in the device (col. 7, lines 36-37).
Gates 102 are not disclosed as being capable of animal egress.
Even if such egress can take place, the gates are not proximate
to the front of the trailer as required by claim 14.
We therefore reverse the rejection of claim 14.
Claim 33
The examiner argues that 1) “the position of [Mollhagen’s]
squeeze chute relative to the tongue 123 is the same for both
treating animals using the squeeze chute and relocation of the
trailer (no movement of the tongue relaitive [sic] to the chute
is necessary, as the chute is located at the rear of the trailer
and the tongue at the front of the trailer)” (final rejection
mailed April 26, 2004, page 4), and 2) “[f]rom Figs. 1-3, it
would appear that the position of the squeeze chute relative to
the tongue is the same” (answer, page 5). The examiner is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007