Appeal No. 2000-0528
Application No. 09/209,702
limitation of claims 46 and 55 or the "peg for preventing a fishing line from escaping . . ."
limitation of claim 51. Accordingly, we shall not sustain rejection (3).
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the following new
rejection.
Claims 51, 55 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Wille.
Wille discloses a base (body 11), a first fishing line release (secondary line holder and
release 33) mounted to the base at substantially a middle thereof, a second fishing line release
(primary line holder and release 24) mounted to the base at substantially a front thereof, and a
line retainer (towbar 12 and the ring on its distal end 13) which retains a tow line. While the
tow bar is intended for attachment of a tow line rather than a fishing line, the fishing line 49 is
"insertable" into the ring at the distal end of the tow bar as recited in claim 55.3
In order to meet a "means-plus-function" limitation, the prior art must (1) perform the
identical function recited in the means limitation and (2) perform that function using the
structure disclosed in the specification or an equivalent structure. Cf. Carroll Touch Inc. v.
Electro Mechanical Sys. Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1578, 27 USPQ2d 1836, 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1994);
Valmont Indus. Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 1042, 25 USPQ2d 1451, 1454 (Fed.
3Claims 51 and 55 do not require that any line, much less the fishing line, actually be inserted into or
retained by the "line retainer."
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007