Appeal No. 2004-0541
Application No. 09/739,718
Nor has the examiner evinced that Moores teaches embedding the
scent receiving element in a spoon-like body portion as required
by claim 18. See also the Brief, page 6. Similarly, the
examiner has not demonstrated that Walker expressly or inherently
teaches placing a scent receiving material at the end of a body
portion of a fishing lure such that the contour of the scent
receiving material conforms to the contour of the end of the body
portion as required by claim 23. See also the Brief, page 12.
Thus, on this record, we concur with the appellant that the
examiner has not established a prima facie case of anticipation
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102. Accordingly, we reverse
the examiner’s Section 102 rejections.
We also reverse the examiner’s Section 103 rejection of
claim 22 as unpatentable over the disclosure of Mooers. On this
record, the examiner has not explained why one of ordinary skill
in the art would have been led to arrive at the above missing
features in Mooers. See the Answer in its entirety.
element which conforms exactly to the size and shape of the
cavity of the spoon-like body portion so that, upon inserting,
their every contour lies in the same plane. This “coplanar”
requirement is to prevent the scent receiving element from
interfering with “the performance of the lure.” Compare the
Answer in its entirety with the Brief, pages 6, 9 and 10,
together with the specification, page 12.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007