Appeal 2007-2318
Application 10/947,324
a way that it is capable of contacting the jig body through sideways or up-
and-down movement and cannot spin freely around the jig.
Appellant also argues that the yarn shown on Buddle’s lure would act
as a stabilizer to stop the lure from wobbling. No evidence, however, is
cited to support this argument. In addition, as discussed above, the “adapted
to strike” language of claim 19 only requires that the blade be capable of
striking the jig, not that it actually do so when the lure is in use.
We affirm the rejections of claim 19 as anticipated by either of Buddle
or Thomas.
With respect to the rejection based on Edwards, Appellant argues that
Edwards’ lure does not have a major portion of the blade above the upper
surface of the jig (Br. 25). We agree. The blade in Edwards’ lure is located
in a slot cut into the body of the jig itself. Thus, while some part of the
blade may be located above the upper surface of the lure, that part does not
reasonably appear to be “a major part” of the blade, as required by claim 19.
The Examiner’s argument to the contrary – that all the surface above the
very bottom is “upper surface” (Answer 20) – is not a reasonable
interpretation of the claim language. The Specification makes clear that
upper surface of the jig body is the uppermost surface (see, e.g.,
Specification 11: 14 to 12: 20, Figures 4A and 4B).
8. DECLARATIONS
Appellant has submitted three Rule 132 declarations as evidence of
nonobviousness. The Declaration of Michael J. Fewell is cited as evidence
“that the average fisherman thinks that the instant invention is something
special” (Reply Br. 11-12). The Declaration of John C. McElwaine is
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013