Appeal 2007-1916
Application 10/753,113
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004). Except as will be noted in this opinion, Appellants have
not presented any substantive arguments directed separately to the patentability of
the dependent claims. In the absence of a separate argument with respect to those
claims, they stand or fall with the representative independent claim. See In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following enumerated findings are supported by at least a
preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427, 7
USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard
for proceedings before the Office).
1. Hollis discloses an electronic animal training device which produces
training stimuli, including sound and/or electric shock, in response to
certain actions by the animal, including barking. (Hollis, Abstract, col. 3,
ll. 1-5).
2. Hollis describes and depicts stimulation electrodes which provide
electrical paths to a dog’s skin (Hollis, col. 3, ll. 58-59, Fig. 2). The
electrodes are at one point described as two metal collar studs, which can
deliver a short pulsed electrical shock generated by shock circuit 57
(Hollis, col. 5, ll. 56-58). Detail A of Figure 2 shows that the electrodes
are held in place against the dog’s neck by a collar.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013