Appeal No. 1998-1919 Page 12
Application No. 08/620,993
obvious to provide Ursrey with a sound generator as shown by
Smith to attract more fish because sound is a well known fish
attractor.
The appellant argues (brief, p. 5) that the claimed
subject matter is not suggested from the applied prior art.
We agree. Claims 12-14 and 30-32 require the transducer to be
"an electromechanical device." Thus, these claims require the
second housing to contain the electromechanical device at the
same time the first housing contains the pulse train
generator. In our view, this is not suggested by the combined
teachings of the applied prior art. That is, there is no
suggestion for modifying Ursrey in the manner proposed by the
examiner to meet the claimed limitations absent the use of
impermissible hindsight.
Claim 26
With respect to claim 26 , the examiner determined (first4
Office action, p. 4) that
4Claim 26 requires the morsel to comprise "a jig bait."
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007