Appeal No. 2006-1147 Page 3
Application No. 10/248,569
23, 2006) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the appellant's brief (filed March 21, 2005) and reply brief (filed February 3, 2006)
for the appellant's arguments.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully considered the
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied prior art, and the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations that follow. It is our view that, after
consideration of the record before us, the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness of the claims based on the prior art relied upon by the
examiner.
Rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 17 and 24 as unpatentable over Brown as
modified by Barry and further in view of Runyon
In the rejection of independent claim 1, the examiner has determined that
Brown teaches a hummingbird feeder having a fluid reservoir (10) with a lid (40),
a plurality of feed holes (42), a base (12), and a center post (20) with first and
second ends. The fluid reservoir is attached to the first end of the center post (20).
The examiner admits, “Brown is silent about an opaque shade having a diameter
that is at least twice as large as a diameter of the fluid reservoir and connected to
the second end of the center post such that the shade substantially covers the fluid
reservoir.” (Final Office Action, dated January 12, 2005, p. 2). The Examiner
relies on Barry for the teaching of a bird feeder having an inverted, bowl-shaped
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007