Appeal 2007-0201
Application 10/973,635
The Appellant argues that Brown does not disclose placing a shrink
wrap film around the sinker and does not disclose that the shrink wrap film
provides compressive confinement (Br. 19-22). That argument is deficient
in that the Appellant is attacking the reference individually when the
rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426, 208 USPQ 871, 882 (CCPA 1981); In re Young, 403 F.2d 754,
757-58, 159 USPQ 725, 728 (CCPA 1968). Biss is relied upon by the
Examiner for a disclosure of placing a shrink wrap film around a sinker
(Ans. 3). As for the argument that there is no disclosure of compressive
confinement, the Appellant’s shrink wrap film is conventional (Spec. 8:8-9).
Biss’s shrink wrap film also appears to be conventional and, therefore,
appears to provide the compressive confinement of the Appellant’s
conventional shrink wrap film.
For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible error in the
rejection of claims 10-12, 14 and 15.
Claim 13
Claim 13 requires “cutting the elongated cylindrical tube to a length
about equal to a length of the solidified bismuth fishing sinker.” The
Examiner argues that “the case exists where Biss uses the entire length of the
sinker noting column 2, line 47, which states that the body may be cut”
(Ans. 5). If Biss’s tube is not cut, then the cutting requirement of the
Appellant’s claim 13 is not met. The Examiner argues that “[c]utting Biss
between the steel or other metal shot at the indentations 11, when viewing
Figs. 4-6 of Biss, would result in the cylindrical tube having a length that is
about equal to the length of one metal shot” (Ans. 6). The tube in Biss’s
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013