Appeal 2007-1916
Application 10/753,113
neck motion detection signal and signals from the
vibration sensor to enable the controller to produce
the aversive stimulus control signals; and
(g) circuitry coupled to the controller to produce
the aversive stimulus signals between the first and
second stimulus electrodes in response to the
aversive stimulus control signals.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Hollis US 6,263,836 B1 Jul. 24, 2001
The following rejections are before us for review.
1. Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hollis.
2. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hollis.
ISSUE
The issue before us is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 3-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hollis; and
claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hollis. The issue turns on
whether Hollis discloses a controller that is operative in response to the
combination of a neck motion signal and a signal from a vibration sensor to enable
the controller to produce an aversive stimulus control signal to a dog.
Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013