Ex Parte MICHAUD et al - Page 7



             Appeal No. 2006-1147                                                           Page 7               
             Application No. 10/248,569                                                                          


                   Rejection of claims 8, 9, 11-16, 18-23, 25, and 26 as unpatentable over                       
             Brown as modified by Barry                                                                          
                   In the rejection of claims 8, 9, 11-16, 18-23, 25, and 26,1 the examiner has                  
             determined that Brown discloses a hummingbird feeder as claimed except that                         
             Brown is silent about a hood positioned over the reservoir and having the                           
             dimensions as recited in the claims.  (Final Office Action, pp. 4-8).  The examiner                 
             found that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the                
             time the invention was made to employ the shade of Barry in the bird feeder of                      
             Brown, “in order to provide full coverage of the reservoir, thus preventing the food                
             in the reservoir from being spoiled.”  (Final Office Action, p. 5).                                 
                   The appellant contends that Brown teaches away from using a cover at all in                   
             its “perfect feeder” and that Barry teaches a transparent cover that would not                      
             provide shade from direct sunlight as called for in the claims.  (Appellant’s Brief,                
             p. 10).                                                                                             
                   We agree with the appellant that the teachings of Brown and Barry would                       
             not have led a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made               
             to have constructed a hummingbird feeder having a cover that functions as a shade.                  
             As discussed above, Brown does not teach using any shade or cover on its                            

                                                                                                                
             1 Independent claims 8, 16, and 22 all require a structure to provide shade to the reservoir.       
             Claim 8 requires a hood that is “constructed to shade the liquid reservoir from direct sunlight.”   
             Claim 16 requires that a hood that “casts a shadow entirely over the reservoir for a majority of a  
             travel distance of a light source passing over the feeder as the light source moves from a first    
             horizon to a second horizon 180° from the first horizon.”  Claim 22 requires that the feeder        
             include, “means for providing shade to the means for providing sugar solution.”  The appellant      
             makes the same argument for patentability for independent claims 8, 16 and 22.                      




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007