Appeal No. 1999-0704 Page 11
Application No. 08/558,661
or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual basis. In re Warner, 379 F.2d
1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968).
As Kelly provides no teaching or suggestion that the eye 66 or sleeve 68 contains any
resin or fibers, let alone fibers circumferentially arranged as required by the claim, and as the
examiner has adduced no evidence suggesting the use of such a composite material for the eye
or sleeve, it is apparent to us that the examiner has resorted to hindsight, using the appellants'
disclosure as a template to reconstruct the claimed invention, in rejecting claim 23. Therefore,
we shall not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 23.
Unlike independent claim 1, independent claim 25 does not recite cushioning means per
se. Claim 25 does, however, recite a fishline guide having a higher resin content in the front
and rear regions thereof than in the central region thereof and "being connected integrally to
said rod tube as a consequence of thermal molding of the rod tube." As Kelly neither teaches
nor suggests a guide meeting both of these requirements, we shall not sustain the examiner's
rejection of claim 25, or claims 26-30 which depend from claim 25, as being unpatentable over
Kelly.
Rejection (2)
In rejecting claim 22 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of Harada, the examiner
implicitly concedes that Kelly lacks a disclosure that the guide is disposed in an annular recess
formed on the inner surface of the rod tube as required by the claim, but contends that it would
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007