Appeal No. 2004-0541
Application No. 09/739,718
Walker. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the disclosure of Mooers.
We reverse the aforementioned rejections and remand the
application to the examiner for appropriate action consistent
with the instruction below.
An anticipation under Section 102 is established only when a
single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or under
the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655,
1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990); RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys.,
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984).
Here, the examiner has not demonstrated that Mooers or
Monticello inherently or expressly teaches a scent receiving
element being embedded in the spoon-like body portion of a
fishing lure such that the plane of the scent receiving element
is “coplanar”1 with the plane of the spoon-like body portion as
required by claim 18.2 See also the Brief, pages 6, 9 and 10.
1 According to page 310 of Webster’s II New Riverside
University Dictionary (1994) attached to this decision,
“coplanar” means “[l]ying or occurring in the same plane.”
2 It cannot be said that Mooers or Monticello expressly or
inherently teaches the shape and size of the scent receiving
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007