Appeal No. 2006-1507
Application No. 10/114,567
The appellants point out that Chilcott’s claim 1 recites
that the hook has “an eye which lies within the minnow when the
barbed-hook is disposed forwardly and constitutes line-attaching
means when said barbed-hook is disposed rearwardly”, and that eye
13 in Chilcott’s figures 2-7 always remains within the bait
(brief, pages 14-15). The appellants argue that there is no
suggestion in Chilcott that the hook be configured in any other
way with respect to eye 13 (brief, pages 15-22).
The appellants’ claim 1 claims only a rigging harness, not a
rigging harness in combination with a fishing lure. Chilcott’s
trolling hook has eyes at both ends (figures 1 and 8) and,
therefore, is capable of being used with a fishing lure that is
shorter than the distance between the eyes such that both eyes
extend outwardly from the lure. Consequently, the appellants’
claim 1 does not patentably distinguish the rigging harness over
Chilcott.
The appellants’ claim 14 claims a rigging harness in
combination with a lure and requires that both the eye loop and
another loop extend outwardly from the lure. Chilcott does not
exemplify that configuration. However, Chilcott discloses that
the hook end eye (14) can extend outwardly from the lure
regardless of whether it is at the mouth end or the tail end of
the minnow lure (figures 4 and 6), and that the eye 13 end can
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013