Appeal No. 1999-0704 Page 5
Application No. 08/558,661
formed integrally with the rod. However, it would have been obvious to form
the guides with the fishing rod.
Figures 12 and 13 of Kelly illustrate two different embodiments of the narrow bearing
surfaces. The resilient sleeve 68 in the Figure 12 embodiment is provided to permit flexing of
the rod and is needed because the ring or eye 66 is made of agate, tungsten carbide or glazed
porcelain and, thus, is not resilient. The eye 70 of the Figure 13 embodiment, on the other
hand, is itself resilient and, according to Kelly (page 3), permits flexing of the rod under load.
Thus, we cannot agree with the examiner that Kelly provides any suggestion to add a
cushioning layer at the front and rear of the already resilient eye 70. For the reasons which
follow, however, it is our opinion that the embodiment of Figure 12 is sufficient, without
reference to the Figure 13 embodiment, to have suggested the subject matter of claim 1.
The tubular rod 20 of Kelly's fishing rod is made of "fibre glass" (page 1) and
comprises a plurality of narrow closely axially spaced bearing surfaces within its bore which,
according to the embodiment of Figure 12, comprise an eye 66 "seating inside resilient sleeve
68 within the bore of the rod" (page 3). We consider the eye 66 and sleeve 68 together to
meet the fishline guide recited in claim 1, with the bulbous portions of the sleeve 684
responding to the cushioning means formed at the front and rear sides of the guide to form a
connection between the rod tube and the guide so as to reduce stress concentration when the
tube is flexed. As the sleeve 68 is part of the guide and has an outer peripheral surface which
4There is no requirement in the claim that the guide be a one-piece structure.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007