Appeal No. 1998-1919 Page 14
Application No. 08/620,993
references disclose (see In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135
USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962)) and the conclusion of obviousness
may be made from "common knowledge and common sense" of the
person of ordinary skill in the art (see In re Bozek, 416 F.2d
1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969)). Moreover, skill
is presumed on the part of those practicing in the art. See
In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir.
1985). Thus, it is our conclusion that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified Ursrey's lure so that it
sinks or can be fished underwater in the manner of a jig
lure/bait.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1, 2, 5-11, 15, 24, 25, 27-29 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) is affirmed with respect to claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11, 15,
24, 25, 27-29 and 40, but is reversed with respect to claims 9
and 10; and the decision of the examiner to reject claims 3,
4, 12-14, 16-23, 26 and 30-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007