Appeal No. 1999-0969
Application No. 08/790,501
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1 and 3 as being
clearly anticipated by Rigney.
We will sustain the examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 1 and 3.
Claim 1 recites:
1. An artificial bait comprising:
a body shaped to simulate a natural bait and having a
predetermined base drop rate when immersed in water with a
threshold weight attached thereto; and
means on said body for delineating a breakaway segment
from a main segment thereof, said main segment of said body
having a predetermined drop rate faster than said
predetermined base drop rate when immersed in water with the
examiner (answer, page 3).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007