Appeal No. 1999-2783
Application No. 08/654,034
To provide for these differences between Fussell and the
claimed subject matter, the examiner urges that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
appellant's invention was made to
provide the floating piece of Fussell with a
blocking means attached to the rectangular
floating piece in view of Budge et al and Hill
so as to maintain the floating piece in
horizontal level when the floating piece is
anchored to a bottom of a body of water (answer,
page 4).
In addition, the examiner also concludes that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
provide the floating piece of Fussell with a
water resilient plastic material made of vinyl
in view of Hill so as to provide shelter to the
school of fish and block a substantial amount of
sun rays from penetrating the floating piece
line when anchored to a bottom of a body of
water (answer, page 4).
Appellant asserts that the Hill reference is non-
analogous art because it is not within appellant's field of
endeavor (i.e., floating artificial weed lines) and is not
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem that appellant
addresses. Moreover, appellant urges that the examiner has
utilized the Hill reference from a totally unrelated art based
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007