Appeal 2007-2318
Application 10/947,324
during retrieval. We therefore reverse the rejection of claim 18 as obvious
in view of Yarvise and either Werner or Norman.
6. OBVIOUSNESS BASED ON THOMAS
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Thomas, Olson, and either of Werner or Norman.1 The Examiner relies on
Thomas as disclosing a fishing lure meeting all of the limitations of claim 18
except for the bulbous-shaped body and the “pair of line attachment holes”
(Answer 10-11). The Examiner relies on Olson for its disclosure of a jig
with a body having a bulbous shape, and relies on Werner and Norman for
their disclosure of fishing lures having paired line attachment holes (id. at
11, 12). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Thomas’ lure by using a jig body having a bulbous shape, as disclosed by
Olson, in order to “more closely resemble a fish prey species such as a
minnow or a tadpole” (id. at 11) and to use the paired line attachment holes
disclosed by Werner and Norman (id. at 12).
Appellant argues that Thomas’ lure does not meet the “adapted to
strike” limitation of claim 18 (Br. 19; Reply Br. 6-7). We disagree. As the
Examiner pointed out, the blade of Thomas’ lure (as shown in the figures)
appears to be capable of moving freely on the split ring connecting it to the
jig body, and therefore appears to be capable of striking (contacting) the jig
body. As we interpret the claim language, that is all that claim 18 requires.
1 The Examiner also rejected claim 18 as obvious in view of Thomas
combined with Werner or Norman, but conceded (Answer 11) that Thomas
must be modified to produce a lure with a bulbous-shaped body. We
therefore reverse the rejection of claim 18 based on Thomas and either
Werner or Norman.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013