Appeal No. 2006-1507
Application No. 10/114,567
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-4, 8, 11-18 and 23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chilcott.1,2
OPINION
We affirm the aforementioned rejection.
The appellants do not provide a substantive argument as to
the separate patentability of the dependent claims. Hence, we
limit our discussion to the independent claims, i.e., claims 1
and 14. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Chilcott discloses a trolling hook having a shank that is
formed from a single piece of wire and has an eye at one end for
attachment to a fishing line and receiving a tie if a number of
hooks are to be tied together, and an eye at the hook end for
properly positioning bait on the hook (page 1, left column, lines
1-15 and 43-44). The hook is hidden to a large extent by the
bait (page 1, left column, lines 16-18).
1 The statement of the rejected claims is correct in the office action summary
in the final rejection (mailed September 15, 2004). In the body of the final
rejection (page 2) and in the examiner’s answer (page 3) the rejected claims
are incorrect set forth as claims 1-4, 8-11 and 23.
2 In the examiner’s answer (page 9) the examiner relies upon US 2,562,605 to
Embree et al. That reference is not included in the statement of the
rejection and, therefore, is not properly before us. See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d
1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970). Consequently, we have not
considered Embree et al. in reaching our decision.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013