Appeal No. 2003-0491 Page 5
Application No. 09/584,173
Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383, 58 USPQ2d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2001);
Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18
USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Inasmuch as we agree with appellants that
Smoluk lacks a teaching of a pole holding means, we conclude that the subject matter
of claim 1 is not anticipated by Smoluk. We thus cannot sustain this rejection.
We also cannot sustain the rejection of claims 2-4, which depend from claim 1,
as being unpatentable over Smoluk in view of Moisan. Moisan, relied upon by the
examiner for its teaching of using a rubber grip material for holding fishing line, does not
cure the above-noted deficiency of Smoluk.
The Becker in view of Creviston rejections
Becker discloses an automatic fish catching device into which fishing line 15 is
fed. When a fish grasps the hook on the end of the line, a spring-loaded lever 5 is
released from its position shown in Figure 1 in which it is latched to the vertical limb 3
and swings to the lowered position shown in Figure 2. The examiner concedes that
Becker lacks a pole holding means. In view of the teachings of Creviston of the
attachment of a fishing pole to an automatic motion lure and alert, the examiner
determined that it would have been obvious to modify Becker’s device such that a rod
holder is employed in order to secure a fishing rod in close proximity to the hook setting
device so that the angler may retrieve the fish quickly upon being hooked and also to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007