Ex Parte Smart et al - Page 3




          Appeal No. 2006-1507                                                              
          Application No. 10/114,567                                                        
                                      THE REJECTION                                         
                Claims 1-4, 8, 11-18 and 23 stand rejected under                            
          35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chilcott.1,2                           
                                          OPINION                                           
                We affirm the aforementioned rejection.                                     
                The appellants do not provide a substantive argument as to                  
          the separate patentability of the dependent claims.  Hence, we                    
          limit our discussion to the independent claims, i.e., claims 1                    
          and 14.  See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).                                     
                Chilcott discloses a trolling hook having a shank that is                   
          formed from a single piece of wire and has an eye at one end for                  
          attachment to a fishing line and receiving a tie if a number of                   
          hooks are to be tied together, and an eye at the hook end for                     
          properly positioning bait on the hook (page 1, left column, lines                 
          1-15 and 43-44).  The hook is hidden to a large extent by the                     
          bait (page 1, left column, lines 16-18).                                          




                                                                                           
          1 The statement of the rejected claims is correct in the office action summary    
          in the final rejection (mailed September 15, 2004).  In the body of the final     
          rejection (page 2) and in the examiner’s answer (page 3) the rejected claims      
          are incorrect set forth as claims 1-4, 8-11 and 23.                               
          2 In the examiner’s answer (page 9) the examiner relies upon US 2,562,605 to      
          Embree et al.  That reference is not included in the statement of the             
          rejection and, therefore, is not properly before us.  See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d    
          1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970).  Consequently, we have not     
          considered Embree et al. in reaching our decision.                                
                                             3                                              




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013