Appeal 2007-2318
Application 10/947,324
3. ANTICIPATION BY PERRICK
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Perrick. The Examiner finds that Perrick discloses a fishing lure meeting all
the structural limitations of claim 18 (Answer 4-5). Regarding the
functional “adapted to strike” limitation, the Examiner concludes that the
rear edge of the blade of Perrick’s lure “is clearly capable of striking the jig
. . . during retrieval of the line” since the connection between them is a split
ring, which does not restrict contact between the edge and the jig, and no
other structure would prevent the two from contacting each other (id. at
13-14).
We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning and conclusion. We also
note that Perrick indicates that the jig and the blade move back-and-forth
and up-and-down relative to each other during retrieval (Perrick, Fig.4,
arrows E through J). Such movements support our conclusion that the edge
of the blade in Perrick’s lure would be capable of contacting at least the
eyelet of the jig.
Appellant argues that “Perrick’s blade 31 does not strike lure hook
body 43” (Br. 16) and that “a plain reading of Perrick ‘283 . . . clearly shows
that Perrick’s blade is not intended to strike the body during retrieval” (id. at
17).
Appellant may well be correct that the blade of Perrick’s lure is not
intended to strike the jig body, and does not strike the jig body during
normal use. However, claim 18 does not require the claimed lure to have a
blade that strikes the jig body; it only requires that the blade strike the jig,
and the jig is made up of a hook and an eyelet in addition to a body. Thus,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013