Appeal No. 2005-0333
Application No. 09/918,074
As acknowledged by the examiner (Answer, page 5), Reinhardt,
for example, discloses treating its artificial flower with perfume,
an aromatic pleasant to humans. See also, e.g., Reinhardt, column
1, line 23. The examiner has not found that Reinhardt’s
artificial flower is known or intended to be used as a fish-bait
article. See the Answer in its entirety.
To remedy the deficiency of Reinhardt, the examiner has relied
on the teachings of Sibley. See the Answer, page 3, together with
the final Office action dated December 13, 2002, page 2. As
acknowledged by the examiner (the final Office action dated
December 13, 2002, page 2), however, Sibley only teaches using a
fish-luring aromatic in a fish-bait article. Although the examiner
has asserted at page 3 of the Answer that the perfume referred to
in Reinhardt is equivalent to or inclusive of a fish-luring
aromatic, such as the one taught in Sibley, the examiner has not
supplied any factual basis to support such an assertion. In re
Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir.
2002)(“‘The factual inquiry whether to combine references must be
thorough and searching.’...It must be based on objective evidence
of record. This precedent has been reinforced in myriad decisions,
and cannot be dispensed with.”). Larsen relied on by the examiner,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007