Appeal No. 98-2097
Application NO. 08/670,320
combination with the Hardy document, which would teach the use
of a snap-fitted end cap. The argument is then made, in
effect, that it seems incorrect to state that the claimed
snap-fitted end cap would have been obvious in light of a cap
that is permanently affixed to a spool with rivets. We agree.
To fairly assess the obviousness of the claimed subject
matter in light of the Hardy disclosure under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
we set aside in our minds what appellants have informed us of
in the present application. Having done so, we are at a loss
to understand how one having ordinary skill in the art would
have derived any suggestion whatsover from the riveted end cap
teaching of Hardy for a snap-fitted end cap, as now claimed.
The examiner has simply failed to provide evidence in support
of the conclusion made that a fishing reel assembly, as
claimed,
with a snap-fitted end cap, would have been obvious, at the
time
of appellants’ invention. Absent such supporting evidence in
the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007