Appeal No. 2003-0700
Application 09/547,578
In proposing to combine Drake and Watts to reject claim 24,
the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to
provide Drake with [the] concept shown by Watts so that rotation
of one lure part effects a rotation of another lure part for the
purpose of effecting a more direct relationship between cause and
effect and since a step of manually rotating [Drake’s] fins can
be omitted” (final rejection, page 4). Suffice to say that the
only suggestion for this proposed combination of widely disparate
teachings stems from hindsight knowledge impermissibly derived
from the appellant’s disclosure.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 24, and dependent claims
25 through 27, as being unpatentable over Drake in view of Watts.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 28 as being
unpatentable over Drake in view of Watts and Golembeski
Since Golembeski does not cure the above noted shortcomings
of the Drake-Watts combination relative to the subject matter
recited in parent claim 24, we shall not sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 28 as being
unpatentable over Drake in view of Watts and Golembeski.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 3,
6, 7 and 24 through 28 is affirmed with respect to claims 1
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007