Appeal No. 1998-3007 Page 10
Application No. 08/690,994
set forth in the appellant's reply brief (p. 2), the term
"scoop" requires a curvature. However, such curvature is
present due to the concave nature of Cole's surface 38.
Claim 14
We agree with the examiner that claim 14 is readable on
Cole's Figure 3.
The appellant argues (brief, p. 8, and reply brief, pp.
2-3) that "by the language of claim 14 itself, extending
through the entire lure body is not within the scope of claim
14." We do not agree. In that regard as set forth above,
limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification. In re Van Geuns, supra. We fail to find any
limitation in claim 14 that excludes the claimed pins from
extending to both sides of the middle section.
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
is affirmed.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007