Appeal No. 2003-0067
Application No. 09/713,480
the rejection is improper and will be overturned. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Each of the independent claims on appeal is directed to a fishing hook having a shank with
an eye at one end and a bent portion culminating in a point at the other end, in combination with
either a buoyant body and a weight mounted on the hook (claim 10), or a buoyant body and centers
of gravity of the hook and the buoyant body (claim 11), or a buoyant sleeve and “a plug”1 (claim
15), situated to cause said hook to orient in water with said point above said eye and with “said
shank vertically oriented.”
The starting point for each of the examiner’s rejections is Robertaccio. This reference
pertains to an artificial bait for fishing that simulates a fish egg or other natural bait made by
inflating a balloon or similar object with a pressurized fluid and then tying or otherwise closing it
off (abstract). Robertaccio states that the balloon is inflated to a diameter in the preferred range of
about ¼ to 1 inch (col. 4, lines 6-8), and that the pressurized fluid used to inflate the balloon may be
a gas such as carbon dioxide, helium, or air (col. 5, lines 3-5). One or more inflated balloons may
be tied or otherwise secured to a fishing hook to achieve one of the structures illustrated in 2-5. As
explained by Robertaccio (col. 2, lines 24-29), the artificial fish bait adds buoyancy which
“enhances the hooking ability of an associated fish hook by controlling hook orientation in the water
1Applicant’s “plug” is illustrated in Figures 3-5 and denominated by the reference letter
“P”. As we understand it, the “plug” may be, for example, an artificial fishing lure.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007