Appeal No. 2003-0700
Application 09/547,578
7 is whether Drake teaches or would have suggested a fishing lure
meeting the limitation in independent claim 1 requiring “a guard
means for preventing accidental changing of said adjustable-depth
means . . . wherein said guard means comprises an internal cavity
within said body structured and arranged to substantially enclose
said adjustable-depth means.”
The appellant does not dispute that Drake’s metal tube 15
and set screw 19 collectively constitute an adjustable-depth
means as recited in claim 1. As clearly shown in Figure 3, this
adjustable-depth means is substantially enclosed within an
internal cavity defined within Drake’s lure body 10 by a pair of
intersecting passages. Ostensibly, this internal cavity would
inherently function as a guard means for preventing accidental
changing of the adjustable-depth means. Thus, notwithstanding
the appellant’s argument to the contrary, Drake does in fact
disclose a guard means to the extent recited in claim 1.
Hence, the appellant’s traverse of the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1 through 3, 6 and 7 as being
unpatentable over Drake is not persuasive. We shall therefore
sustain this rejection.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007