Appeal No. 2006-1513 Παγε 10
Application No. 10/068,574
incorporated into the body of the decoy. From all of the above,
we find that the teachings of Tryon and Palmer would have
suggested the language of claim 30. The rejection of claim 30
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. As claims 32 and 33 have
not been separately argued by appellants, they fall with claim
30, from which they depend. The rejection of claims 32 and 33
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
We turn next to claim 31. Appellants assert (brief, page 7)
that the references do not teach or suggest a plurality of heads
that are insertable into the body. From our review of the
record, we are in agreement with the examiner (answer, pages 4-5)
that from the disclosure of having an insertable head in Palmer,
it would have been obvious to have provided a plurality of heads
so that if one was lost, another could be inserted in its place.
We add that it would have been an obvious duplication of parts to
provide extra decoy heads in the kit. The rejection of claim 31
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
We enter a New Ground of Rejection (37 CFR § 41.50(b)) of
claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Tryon in view of either Cromett (U.S. Patent No. 6,157,865) or
Culp (U.S. Patent No. 6,057,012). As we found, supra, with
respect to claim 21, Tryon discloses that the photographs are
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007