Appeal No. 1999-1061 Page 6
Application No. 08/568,337
reference does not, in our opinion, overcome the deficiency in Lindler discussed above
with regard to independent claim 1, from which they depend. This being the case, a prima
facie case of obviousness therefore also has not been established with regard to claims 2-
4, and this rejection is not sustained.
Independent claim 10 and dependent claims 14-28 have been rejected as being
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Sunaga and Lindler. Claim 10 sets forth the
inventive fishing rod as a pipe comprising a plurality of layers formed by winding fiber
reinforced prepreg such that the fibers are aligned in an axial direction, wherein
an inner layer of the plurality of layers has bubbles and wherein bubbles existing in at least
one of an outermost layer and a layer interface are fewer than the bubbles in the inner
layer. The examiner points out that Sunaga discloses a fishing rod having an inner layer
with a plurality of bubbles and an outer layer having no bubbles at all, which meets the
“fewer” requirement set forth in claim 10. The examiner also opines that to the extent that
Sunaga fails to disclose a pipe formed in the manner recited in claim 10, Lindler teaches
orienting the fibers in the outer layer in the axial length direction, and it would have been
obvious to so modify Sunaga.
The Sunaga fishing rod comprises an outer tube of prepreg sheet woven of high
strength fibers such as glass or carbon impregnated with synthetic resin, that is filled with a
thermosetting resin in which a plurality of micro-balloons are dispersed. The application
of a thermosetting process causes the woven outer tube to become integral with the resin
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007