Appeal No. 2006-1513 Παγε 9
Application No. 10/068,574
We turn next to independent claim 30. Appellants assert
(brief, page 7) that neither reference teaches or suggests a
decoy having a main body with a photograph containing animal
features incorporated therein. Appellants acknowledge that
although Palmer shows a main body having an orifice and a decoy
having a head with a flange insertable into the orifice, that
there is no motivation to modify Tryon to provide this feature.
From Palmer’s disclosure (col. 1, lines 30-33) of providing
a decoy of knockdown construction for transport in a compact
condition, and Tryon’s disclosure (col. 1, lines 35-38) that
silhouette type decoys are preferred because they can be knocked
down for easy storage when not in use, we find a suggestion of
providing Tryon’s decoy with a detachable head decoy. In
addition, from Palmer’s disclosure of a decoy having a body and
an orifice and a head with a flange that is insertable into the
orifice, we find that an artisan would have been motivated to
provide Tryon’s decoy with a head that is insertable into the
body. We are not persuaded by appellants’ assertion (brief, page
7) that the advantage of such a feature would be lost in Tryon
once the photograph is attached to the head and body portion,
because claim 30 does not recite a photograph attached to the
head of the decoy. Rather the claim recites that a photograph is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007