Appeal 2007-2318
Application 10/947,324
We also agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that those skilled in the
art would have found it obvious to modify Thomas’ lure to use a bulbous-
shaped jig body, since bulbous jig bodies were conventional in the art.
(Olson, Figure 1; Specification 5: 1-2 (“The jig itself is a generally
conventional jig, comprising a weighted body . . .”) and Figure 1 (showing a
bulbous-shaped weighted body)). And, as discussed above, the evidence
shows that single and paired line attachment holes were both well-known in
the art.
7. ANTICIPATION – CLAIM 19
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
any of Buddle, Thomas, or Edwards. The Examiner finds that all of the
references disclose fishing lures comprising a jig joined to a blade, and that
the lures are configured such that the blade is capable of striking part of the
jig (Answer 5-6). The Examiner also points to figures in each patent that
show, in his view, that a major portion of the blade is above the upper
surface of the jig during retrieval (id.).
With respect to the rejections based on Buddle and Thomas, Appellant
argues that neither reference shows the edge of the blade adapted to strike
the jig so as to limit its oscillation in one direction (Br. 20-21, 22-24).
We do not find this argument persuasive. Buddle’s blade 14 connects
directly with the eyelet 8 of the jig (Buddle 1: 84-85). The blade is also
connected in such a way that it cannot spin freely around the jig; i.e., contact
with the jig (eyelet or body) limits the oscillation in at least one direction.
Similarly, the blade of Thomas’ lure is connected through a split ring
(Thomas, col. 2, ll. 38-41) to the eyelet of the jig (id., Figs. 8 and 9) in such
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013