Appeal No. 2000-2015
Application 08/843,060
hindsight in order to reconstruct appellant’s claimed subject
matter. In our opinion, there is no motivation or suggestion
in the applied patents to Kelly and Ward which would have
reasonably led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
rod of Kelly in the particular manner urged by the examiner so
as to provide that rod with a light source in a housing
wherein the housing is disposed within the rod member and
spaced a slight distance apart from a tip of the free end of
the rod member. In fact, it appears to us that if one of
ordinary skill in the art were inclined to alter the fishing
rod of Kelly in view of the teachings and suggestions found in
Ward, they would have either merely included an additional
light source like that specifically shown in Ward on the rod
of Kelly, retaining the light source at the tip of the rod in
Kelly, or eliminated the light source at the tip of the rod in
Kelly and replaced it with a light source applied to the rod
in the particular manner shown and taught by Ward.
As urged by appellant (reply brief, page 2), the broad
concept of having a light source spaced a slight distance from
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007