Appeal No. 2003-1552
Serial No. 10/116,937
2) solidifying the coating material, thereby entrapping the air
bubbles, and then 3) removing the core metal to provide a fishing
lure having, where the core metal used to be, a cavity portion
(col. 3, lines 24-37; col. 4, lines 9-13 and 43-49). The
entrapped air bubbles, therefore, appear to be randomly
dispersed.
The examiner argues that the distribution of Kato’s bubbles
is not random because the stirrer or tropical fish tank oxygen
supply used to form the bubbles is under the direct control of
the maker of the lure body (answer, page 6). This argument is
not well taken because the examiner has not established that any
such direct control produces a non-random bubble distribution.
The examiner argues that Kato’s teaching that “no air bubble
is present in the outer peripheral portion thereof but air
bubbles 14 are surely sealed in the artificial bait main body 10"
(col. 3, lines 19-21) “reinforces the idea that Kato is
controlling the bubble distribution within the body” (answer,
page 4). This argument is not convincing because the examiner
has not established that the absence of air bubbles in the outer
peripheral portion is the result of anything other than random
bubble formation.
The examiner argues that “the act of dipping the core
metal 24 of Kato into the unformed material 10A’ with bubbles
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007