Appeal No. 1999-0969
Application No. 08/790,501
threshold weight attached thereto and said breakaway segment
removed therefrom.
At the outset we note that Rigney discloses an artificial
bait 30 shaped to simulate a natural bait (crawdad (fig. 1) or
a worm (fig. 2)) "which, in combination with a hook, sinks at
relatively low rates of descent" (col. 1, lines 57-58).
Various predetermined descent (or drop) rates are shown in the
table in column 4. Appellant and the examiner disagree only
on whether Rigney teaches the "means" portion of appellant's
claim 1.
The examiner's rejection states "Rigney discloses a body
shaped to simulate a natural bait (figures 1-3) and a means on
said body for delineating a breakaway segment (31, figure 1)"
(final rejection, page 1). In dismissing appellant's prior
argument, it is explained that "the limitations in the claims
directed to the drop rates of the bait before and after the
segments are removed are given very little patentable
weight... these limitations are use limitations and fail to
further defined (sic) the structure of the artificial bait"
(final rejection, page 3).
An express teaching or even an express disclosure is not
required to establish anticipation as appellant seems to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007