Appeal Number: 2006-2761
Application Number: 10/806,223
were a person of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Cheshire and Waters,
the Waters attractant device would have been mounted on or placed near the Cheshire type
device rather than being mounted so that the carbon dioxide is within the Cheshire type device so
as to be dispersed in the outflow.
In addition, it is our view that the Cheshire device does not disclose an overlapping
region of the inflow and outflow as required by independent claims 1, 24, 39, and 50. We also
find that the Cheshire device does not include an outflow outside the device so that the inflow
extends substantially to or below an elevation of the outflow opening as required by independent
claims 83 and 112.
Cheshire discloses and depicts in Figure 4 that an the inflow can be sensed by an insect at
points A, C and D each of which is considerably above the outflow of the device at 31 as
depicted in Figure 2. As such, there is no overlap of the inflow and outflow and the inflow does
not extend below the elevation of the outflow opening as required by the independent claims.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejection of the examiner.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013