Appeal No. 2006-1147 Page 8
Application No. 10/248,569
hummingbird feeder. Barry teaches using a transparent cover on a seed feeder “to
protect the container and its contents from the elements and to provide a reduced
access to pests.” (Barry, col. 1, lines 19-20). We find no suggestion in Barry to
construct the cover for the feeder so that it provides shade to the feeder, because
Barry relates to a seed feeder. Barry does not teach protecting the seed container
from sun exposure. As such, there is no suggestion to use the cover of Barry to
provide shade to the hummingbird feeder of Brown.
Further, even if the teachings of Brown and Barry were combined, the
combination would not teach or suggest a hood or other means for providing shade
to the reservoir. Rather, the combination would merely result in a hummingbird
feeder with a transparent cover. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of the
claims based on the combination of Brown and Barry.2
2 We note with regard to claim 22 that it recites, “wherein the means for providing sugar solution
is a distance below the means for providing shade and the distance is less than a diameter of the
means for providing sugar solution.” We question whether this is what the appellant intended to
claim. The specification discusses a ratio of the distance 50 that the liquid reservoir 14 extends
below the hood 12 to the diameter 30 of the hood 12. (Specification, page 6, para. [0030]). If
further prosecution of this application is pursued, the appellant is encouraged to review this
claim limitation for correctness.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007