Appeal 2007-2318
Application 10/947,324
since the blade of Perrick’s lure is capable of striking at least the eyelet of
the jig, it is capable of striking the jig as defined in claim 18.
4. OBVIOUSNESS IN VIEW OF PERRICK AND OLSON
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Perrick and Olson. We have already found that Perrick anticipates claim 18.
We therefore affirm the instant rejection: “anticipation is the epitome of
obviousness.” Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220
USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Appellant argues that Perrick does not teach or suggest the “adapted
to strike” limitation (Br. 18, Reply Br. 4). This argument has been addressed
above.
5. OBVIOUSNESS BASED ON YARVISE
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Yarvise combined with either of Werner or Norman. The Examiner relies
on Yarvise as disclosing a fishing lure meeting all of the limitations of claim
18 except for the “pair of line attachment holes”: Yarvise’s lure has a single
hole with which to attach the fishing line (Answer 7-8). The Examiner cites
Werner and Norman for their disclosure of fishing lures having paired line
attachment holes and concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the blade of Yarvise such that
there are a pair of line attachment holes . . . in view of Werner and Norman”
(id. at 9).
Appellant argues that Yarvise’s lure does not meet the “adapted to
strike” limitation of claim 18 (Br. 18; Reply Br. 5). We disagree. As the
Examiner pointed out, the blade of Yarvise’s lure (as shown in the figures)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013