Appeal No. 1998-1919 Page 13
Application No. 08/620,993
Ursrey shows a crank bait but it would have been within
the purview of one skilled in the art to use a jig bait
with the LED system as shown by Ursrey.
The appellant argues (brief, p. 5) that "neither
reference contains any suggestion of a jig type lure."
The examiner responded to this argument (answer, p. 4) by
stating that
Claim 26 recites a jig type lure which can be considered
as a jig bait. However, what structure is recited? Any
lure that sinks or can be fished underwater can be used a
jig lure since the term "jig" is nothing more than using
the rod tip to move the lure up and down in the water.
The appellant did not respond to this new argument of the
examiner.
We agree with the above-noted reasoning of the examiner
as to why the subject matter of claim 26 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made. We observe that an artisan must be
presumed to know something about the art apart from what the
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007