Appeal No. 1998-3007 Page 13
Application No. 08/690,994
limitation of claim 13 would have been obvious is not
supported by any evidence and thus must be reversed.4
With regard to claim 15, it is our opinion that the
applied prior art would not have suggested the tail section of
soft flexible plastic having "an open-top socket for receipt
of a rattle." The examiner's determination that the above-
noted limitation of claim 15 would have been obvious is not
supported by evidence and thus must be reversed. In that
regard, we agree with the appellant (brief, pp. 11-12) that
Pippert does not teach or suggest an open-top socket for
receipt of a rattle in a soft flexible plastic tail section.5
With regard to claim 22, it is our opinion that the
applied prior art would not have suggested the shape of the
4We note that the patent to Wardrip (U.S. Patent No.
2,503,529) was not applied by the examiner in the rejection of
claim 13. Wardrip shows in Figures 1-3 that the concave face
5 extends past the eyes 27.
5We note that the SWIM BAIT lure cited by the appellant®
was not applied by the examiner in the rejection of claim 15.
The SWIM BAIT lure teaches an open-top socket for receipt of®
a rattle in a soft flexible plastic tail section of the lure.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007