Appeal No. 96-2597
Application No. 08/187,529
allowable if rewritten to include all the limitations of the
base claim.2
The appealed claims are reproduced in the appendix to
appellant’s brief. Claims 1, 6 and 12 are drawn to a fishing
rod holder apparatus, and claim 24 to a method of holding a
fishing rod.
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Barringer 2,709,544 May
31, 1955
Albert 5,261,584 Nov. 16,
1993
The claims on appeal stand finally rejected as follows:
(1) Claims 1, 6 and 12, anticipated by Albert, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b);
(2) Claim 24, anticipated by Barringer, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e).3
2In spite of his statement on page 4 of the final
rejection that claims 7 to 11 and 13 to 18 "would be allowable
if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112
and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and
any intervening claims," the examiner further stated on that
page that the rejection under § 112, second paragraph, had
been overcome, and did not further reject any claims on that
ground.
3The examiner notes in the answer that this rejection
should have been under § 102(b) rather than § 102(e).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007