Appeal No. 1999-1061 Page 2
Application No. 08/568,337
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a fishing rod. An understanding of the invention
can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 1 and 10, which appear in the
appendix to the appellants’ Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Lindler et al. (Lindler) 4,061,806 Dec. 6, 1977
Sunaga et al. (Sunaga) 5,076,004 Dec. 31, 1991
1
Japanese Published Utility Application 06-007923 Feb. 1, 1994
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lindler.
Claims 2-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Lindler in view of the Japanese reference.
Claims 10 and 14-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Sunaga in view of Lindler.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 20) and the first office action on the merits (Paper No.10) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief (Paper No. 19) for the appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
1Our understanding of this reference was obtained from a PTO translation, a copy of
which is enclosed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007