Appeal No. 2003-1552
Serial No. 10/116,937
Kato’s cavity-containing fishing lure body is not a solid
body.1 Hence, the examiner has not established that Kato
anticipates the fishing lure body claimed in the appellant’s
claim 21. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection over Kato of
claim 21 and dependent claims 24 and 25.
Claim 27
The appellant’s claim 27, like claim 21, requires that the
claimed fishing lure has a solid plastic body. As discussed
above regarding the rejection of claim 21, the examiner has not
established that Kato discloses this claim feature.
In addition, claim 27 requires that the solid plastic body
is devoid of any randomly dispersed encapsulated air bubbles.
Kato discloses making his fishing lure by 1) dipping a core
metal (24) into a bath of paste-like coating material, which can
be plastic and which contains air bubbles provided by a stirrer
or tropical fish tank oxygen supply, such that air bubble-
containing coating material adheres to the core metal,
1 In a disclosure not relied upon by the examiner, Kato
states (col. 4, lines 31-36): “In the illustrated embodiment, the
artificial bait main body 10 is formed by use of the above-
mentioned core metal 24. However, this is not limitative but
other methods are also available. For example, the artificial
bait main body can be formed by pouring a paste-like unformed
material into a metal mold.” Kato does not disclose a mold
configured such that it produces a solid body, e.g., one not
having a cavity portion, and is silent as to encapsulated air
bubbles in the body.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007