Appeal No. 2000-0528
Application No. 09/209,702
that either of the arms forms, with the caliper attached thereto, a "peg" as recited in claims 47,
51 and 56.
The examiner's position in this regard appears to us to be based on an unreasonable
interpretation (see answer, pages 9 and 10) of the claim terminology "positive retaining means"
and "preventing." From our perspective, one of ordinary skill in the art, having read the
appellant's disclosure at page 12, the last paragraph, and page 44, the second paragraph, would
understand the "positive retaining means" for preventing the line from escaping therefrom as
structure which retains the line and does not give way to tugging force applied to the line.2
Consequently, such a person would not construe the clasp arms of Reiger, which give way to
the force of a fish tugging on the line and release the line therefrom (column 5, line 64, to
column 6, line 5), as a "positive retaining means" as recited in claims 46 and 55. Further,
while the biasing force applied to the arms of the release clasp 14 does provide some resistance
against the escape of the line from the end of the clasp, it does not "prevent" the line from
escaping as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this term in the context of the
appellant's invention.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not share the examiner's opinion that the arms of the
clasp 14 meet the "positive retaining means for preventing a fishing line from escaping . . ."
2In proceedings before it, the PTO applies to the verbiage of claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account
whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained
in the applicant's specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007