Appeal No. 1999-0969
Application No. 08/790,501
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to an artificial bait
with breakaway segments for adjusting the drop rate in water
(specification, page 1). A copy of the claims under appeal is
set forth in the appendix to the appellant's brief.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Rigney 5,438,790 Aug. 8, 1995
Claims 1, 3, 6-9 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by Rigney.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 12, mailed November 18, 1998) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 10, filed October 29, 1998) and reply brief
(Paper No. 13, filed January 19, 1999) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
1 The rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 10-12 and 14-15 has been withdrawn by the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007