Appeal No. 2004-0541
Application No. 09/739,718
As a final point, we note that Monticello teaches a fishing
lure having an absorbent material 21 corresponding to the claimed
scent receiving material embedded in a spoon-like body. See
column 2, lines 31-40 and column 4, lines 42-46, together with
Figure 1. Although Monticello is silent as to the contour of the
scent receiving material relative to the contour of the spoon-
like body (coplanar), it requires that the scent receiving
material be contained in the spoon-like body. See column 4,
lines 42-43. From our perspective, one of ordinary skill in the
art embedding the scent receiving material into the spoon-like
body would have been led to place the scent receiving material
into the spoon-like body in such a manner that the surface of the
body is continuous and does not interfere with the aerodynamic
performance of a fishing lure. In other words, it would have
been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
ensure that the plane of the embedded scent receiving element is
either “coplanar” or substantially “coplanar” to the plane of the
spoon-like body of a fishing lure. One of ordinary skill in the
art would have been led to the claimed “coplanar” feature,
motivated by a reasonable expectation of successfully maintaining
the intended superior performance of an original fishing lure
design. Thus, upon return of this application, the examiner is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007