Appeal No. 1998-1930 Page 3
Application No. 08/517,183
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to a fishing rod. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading
of exemplary claims 21 and 24, which appear in the appendix to
the appellants' brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Muk Kim 5,090,149 Feb. 25,
1992
Evers Des. 346,754 May 10, 1994
Claims 2 to 8, 11 to 14, 18 and 20 to 26 stand rejected 3
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Muk Kim in
view of Evers.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
3The examiner's statement of the rejection (answer, p. 4)
does not include pending claims 25 and 26 but does include
canceled claims 15 and 16. However, the body of the rejection
(answer, p. 12) does refer to claims 25 and 26. Accordingly,
we consider claims 25 and 26 to be before us in this appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007