Appeal 2006-3332
Application 10/161,519
material), sugars, and a slowly-acting insecticide. The container is driven
into the soil near a location likely to be invaded by termites. Takenaka’s
device may be dug out of the ground periodically and monitored for
evidence of foraging to determine whether termites are still surviving in the
neighborhood of the device. As long as evidence of termite activity is
detected, the device is repeatedly driven into the soil at regular time
intervals. Termite control is deemed to be successful after the passage of a
predetermined period of time without detecting termite activity. (Takenaka
Translation 1.)
As evidenced by the above findings, Takenaka meets the limitations
of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 20, 21, and 22 with the exception of a
toxicant-free monitoring device. Takenaka only discloses a termite control
device filled with a mixture containing slowly-acting insecticide.
Homma evidences that it was known in the art at the time of
Appellant’s invention to monitor termite activity using a detection means
comprising a cylindrical vessel 1 open at the top by insertion opening 5, a
toxicant-free detection piece 2 constructed of material termites like, such as
wood or synthetic resin (Homma Translation 5), inserted into the hollow
core 3 of the vessel 1, and a lid 8 placed above the detection piece 2 to cover
the insertion opening 5 to prevent the vessel 1 and detection piece 2 from
drying out, to prevent natural enemies of termites from entering the vessel 1,
and to prevent rain water from entering the vessel (Homma Translation 5
and 7-8). Homma’s detection means is buried in the ground with the lid
exposed, thereby facilitating removal of the lid for periodic inspection
(Homma Translation 6). As long as such inspection reveals no signs of
termites or termite damage, the detection piece 2 is inserted back into the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013