Appeal No. 1999-1063
Application No. 08/402,498
re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975) wherein
the court indicated that the rationale of "obvious matter of
design choice" applies when a modification is made which
"solves no stated problem.” Therefore, we do not agree that,
based on Cox alone, it would have been an obvious matter of
design to replace the gear train
comprising gears 36, 38, 40 and 42, operably coupling the
motor 32 to the shaft 34, with a worm gear mechanism.
From our perspective, the examiner has impermissibly
relied upon the appellant’s own teachings in arriving at a
conclusion of obviousness. This being the case, we will not
sustain the rejection of claims 2 through 7, 11, 21 and 23
under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 based on Cox alone.
Claim 22, the only other independent claim, calls for a
reel supported by a casing, a plurality of worm wheel teeth
arranged proximate an outer circumferential edge of the reel,
a worm gear operatively engaged with the worm wheel teeth, and
an electric driving means operatively coupled to the worm gear
for effecting a rotation of the worm gear, the rotation of the
worm gear rotating the reel to unwind the line. The rationale
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007