Appeal 2007-2318
Application 10/947,324
dimensioned that it can be fitted over the insulating jacket of a cable.”)
(emphasis added).
Thus, we interpret the claim 18’s limitation that the edge of the blade
is “adapted to strike [the] jig during retrieval of the lure” to require only that
the edge of the blade be capable of striking any part of the jig, including the
eyelet, when the lure is being retrieved through the water.
Claim 19 is also directed to a fishing lure comprising a jig, a blade,
and a “mechanism for joining” the two. We interpret the “jig” recited in
claim 19 to be a conventional jig comprising a hook, body, and eyelet. Cf.
Specification 5: 1-2. Claim 19 contains the same “adapted to strike” and “a
major portion” limitations discussed above.
Finally, claim 19 contains a “whereby” clause: “whereby said blade
oscillating about said joining mechanism, the striking of said edge upon said
jig limiting the oscillation in one direction.” We interpret this clause to
mean that the jig and the blade are attached via a mechanism that causes the
blade to strike part of the jig as it moves; i.e., the mechanism does not allow
the blade to spin freely around the jig.
2. PRIOR ART
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Buddle US 1,418,229 May 30, 1922
Yarvise US 1,994,678 Mar. 19, 1935
Edwards US 1,997,900 Apr. 16, 1935
Thomas US 2,291,422 Jul. 28, 1942
Norman US 3,541,718 Nov. 24, 1970
Werner US 3,753,310 Aug. 21, 1973
Olson US 4,453,333 Jun. 12, 1984
Perrick US 5,857,283 Jan. 12, 1999
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013