Appeal No. 2002-1969
Application No. 09/665,907
specification, wherein it is clear that the lure includes a tail
section (16) with a pre-existing tail slot (54) into which a tail
formed of nylon fibers or strands is to be mounted.
Turning to the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 4
through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we note that the examiner's
position is set forth on pages 2 and 3 of the final rejection,
which has been incorporated into the examiner's answer by
reference (answer, page 3). According to the examiner, Cordell
discloses all of the steps of appellant's method set forth in
claim 1 except for using nylon strands to form the tail and
trimming a flared end of the strands opposite from the insert end
into a desired shape. Wrege is relied upon for its showing of
what the examiner urges is a "trimmed tail 6." In the examiner's
view, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to provide Cordell with a trimmed tail as shown by Wrege for
the purpose of making the tail resemble the tail of a fish. With
respect to the requirement for nylon strands, the examiner takes
the position that it would have been obvious to employ nylon
since the material is based on the suitability for the intended
purpose (citing In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 199, 125 USPQ 416,
417-18 (CCPA 1960)).
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007