1 Other findings, as necessary, appear in the Discussion portion of this
2 opinion.
3
4 C. Discussion
5 For two independent reasons, the invention sought to be patented
6 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
7 (1)
8 At the outset, we note with respect to the obviousness issue, applicant
9 elected to discuss only independent claims 1, 17 and 19. Hence, the appeal
10 is decided on the basis of those claims. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).
11
12 (2)
13 In claim 1, but not claims 17 and 19, applicant mentions a "permanent
14 detackifier." While the applicant and the examiner have a difference of
15 opinion about the meaning of "permanent detackifier", for the purpose of
16 this appeal we believe the meaning of "permanent" is made reasonably clear
17 on page 6, lines 20-23 of the specification.
18 "Permanent," according to applicant, "refers to the detackifying
19 coating's ability to maintain its functionality in spite of repeated usage or
20 handling or in spite of washings associated with usage." Consistent with the
21 definition of "permanent" in the specification, in the Reply Brief filed
22 16 May 2006, applicant does "not deny that the coating would wear off over
23 time …." So, permanent does not mean for all time. It means that as long as
24 the lure does not become tacky during use, any coating may continue to be
25 considered "permanent."
26 Having resolved the meaning of "permanent", we nevertheless find
27 that it is hard to distinguish applicant's "permanent" from applicant's
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013