Appeal No. 1998-3007 Page 7
Application No. 08/690,994
and wherein said at least one hook-receiving connection
includes a connection at said bottom of at least one of said
head and middle sections (Cole's unlabeled connections from
which the unlabeled fish hooks are suspended include a
connection at the bottom of the front section 37 and rear
section 43); and a substantially continuous scoop formed in
said head section at said front end thereof and in said top of
said head section, said scoop dimensioned and configured to
cause erratic action of said head section as said lure is
pulled through the water (Cole's slightly concave surface 38).
The argument presented by the appellant that Cole does
not teach the claimed "scoop" is unpersuasive for the
following reasons.
First, it is our view that the recited function (i.e.,
"to cause erratic action of said head section as said lure is
pulled through the water") is met by Cole's slightly concave
surface 38. In that regard, Cole discloses (column 4, lines
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007