Appeal No. 1999-0969
Application No. 08/790,501
Rigney discloses "[t]he hook or jig has an average
density greater than the average density of water while the
artificial bait has an average density less than the average
density of water" and "the volume of the bait is proportioned
to the volume of the hook so that their average density taken
together slightly exceeds the average density of the water so
that the hook and the body together sink relatively slowly in
the water" (col. 2, lines 2-13). Upon removal of one or more
segments, such as leg segments, from Rigney's crawdad (fig.
1), the predetermined drop rate (described in the table in
column 4) of the initial body will inherently increase because
removal of a segment results in a less buoyant, artificial
bait material. Accordingly, appellant's arguments do not
establish any difference between Rigney and claim 6 on appeal.
It follows that we will sustain the examiner's rejection of
claim 6 inasmuch as all of the limitations are either
expressly, or inherently, disclosed in Rigney.
We also find that the limitations of claims 7-9, which
further modify claim 6 by specifying at least two breakaway
segments extending "serially" (claim 7) and "independently"
(claim 8) from said main segment with the main and breakaway
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007