Appeal No. 2002-1507 3
Application No. 09/196,87
Reference is made to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 18) and to the examiner’s final
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 15 and 19) for the respective positions of appellant and
the examiner regarding the merits of this rejection.
Discussion
Claim 1, the broader of the two independent claims on appeal, reads as follows:
1. A fly line leader comprising a single twisted length of monofilament line
which is folded upon itself to provide at least four strand portions with said strand portions
being twisted together and wherein said folds of said single twisted length of monofilament
line form integral with said leader at least one knot free loop at each of the opposite ends
of said leader.
Gregoire, the examiner’s primary reference in the rejection, comprises, in pertinent
part, a fly line leader as shown in Figure 3 which comprises a single length of
monofilament twisted and folded back upon itself. More particularly, the fly line leader of
Gregoire includes a first portion from C to A comprising two stands of monofilament
twisted together and a second portion from C to D comprising a single strand of
monofilament. The examiner implicitly concedes that the fly line leader of Gregoire does
not include an integral knot free loop at each of the opposite ends of the leader, nor a fly
line leader folded back upon itself to provide at least four strand portions. The examiner
turns to Orvis for a teaching of these features.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007