Appeal No. 2000-0528
Application No. 09/209,702
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of independent claims 46, 51
and 55, or claims 47 and 56 which depend from claims 46 and 55, respectively, as being
anticipated by Wille.
Rejection (2)
Each of the claims on appeal requires a first fishing line release, a second fishing line
release and at least one line retainer. Anderson, however, discloses only one fishing line
release (returning member 40). From our perspective, neither the eyelet 20, which the
examiner has considered to be a fishing line release, nor the other eyelet 22 is in fact a release
as we have interpreted that term, supra, because these eyelets are not designed to hold the line
and release it upon application of a predetermined pulling force.
In light of the above, we cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of the claims as being
anticipated by Anderson.
Rejection (3)
In rejecting the claims as being anticipated by Reiger, the examiner considers the guide
peg 63 and guide peg casing 64 to be the first release, a clasp 14 to be the second release and
the breakaway clip 60 to be the retainer. With regard to the "positive retaining means" recited
in claims 46 and 55, the examiner (answer, pages 5-6 and 10) takes the position that the arms
39, 40 and calipers 42 of the clasp 14 positively retain the line therebetween for preventing the
line from escaping a first end (the ends of the calipers 42). Further, the examiner points out
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007