Appeal No. 2003-1552
Serial No. 10/116,937
Rejection over Lindgard
Lindgard discloses a fishing bait made by impregnating a
resilient, nonwoven, long staple, multifilament polyester web,
commercially available as insulation, with bread batter and then
baking the batter to form bread (col. 2, lines 4-7; col. 4,
lines 37-68). The “bait contains gas bubbles, as cavities, just
as ordinary bread” (col. 2, lines 20-21).
The examiner argues that the appellant’s “comprising”
transition term does not exclude Lindgard’s bread (answer,
pages 7-8). Even if the appellant’s claim 27 does not exclude
bread, Lindgard’s plastic fiber insulation web is not a solid
plastic body and does not encapsulate the gas bubbles in the
bread.
The examiner argues that “the bubbles of Lindgard are not
randomly dispersed or the result of a random act, since they
directly result from the method of making the bait performed by
the user to place them within the bait in the first place so as
to provide buoyancy to the bait” (answer page 8). Although
Lindgard chose the method for forming the bubbles, i.e., baking
bread batter, the chosen method forms bubbles which are randomly
dispersed. Hence, the examiner’s argument is incorrect.
For the above reasons we reverse the rejection over
Lindgard.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007