Appeal No. 1999-1754
Application No. 08/800,230
Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 11) and the Appellants’ Briefs
(Paper Nos. 10 and 12).
OPINION
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is established
only when a single prior art reference discloses, either
expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every
element of the claimed invention. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In
re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir.
1990).
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4, 6 and 8
stand rejected as being anticipated by Strader. Claim 1 is
directed to the combination of a fishing rod having a handle
and a “leverage feature” projecting from one side of the
handle “and extending from a bottom portion to a top portion”
of the handle “so as to be engaged by the side of the hand of
a user gripping said rod handle with a palm grip, with the 2
2The “palm grip” is described on page 1 of the appellants’
specification (lines 11-16) as being a known grip in which the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007