Appeal No. 2006-1507
Application No. 10/114,567
have an auxiliary hook (figures 2 and 3). Those disclosures
would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art,
a trolling hook having hooks and eyes at both ends such that the
eyes extend outwardly from the lure for ease of attachment of the
line, ties and bait. Chilcott’s teaching that the hook is to be
hidden to a large extent (i.e., not completely) by the bait
(page 1, left column, lines 16-18) would have indicated to one of
ordinary skill in the art that such a configuration would be
suitable because although both eyes would extend outwardly from
the bait, the trolling hook would be hidden to a large extent by
the bait.
For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible
error in the examiner’s rejection.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-4, 8, 11-18 and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Chilcott is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013