Appeal Number: 2006-0923
Application Number: 10/622,157
correct that Mollhagen’s trailer tongue always is proximate to
the front of the animal working device (figure 2) and the
squeeze chute always is at the rear of the back enclosure
(figure 3). However, the position of the squeeze chute relative
to the tongue is not the same for both treating animals using
the squeeze chute and relocating the trailer. As indicated by a
comparison of Mollhagen’s figures 2 and 3, the squeeze chute is
closer to the tongue in the transport position (figure 2) than
in the animal treatment position (figure 3).
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claim 33 and its
dependent claim 34.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 12-17, 33 and 34 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Mollhagen is affirmed as to claims 12,
13 and 15-17, and reversed as to claims 14, 33 and 34. The
rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mollhagen in
view of Lerma is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007