Appeal No. 2003-1981 Page 10
Application No. 09/715,684
allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied
prior art. See Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Patent App. & Int. 1990).
This the examiner has not done. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1 and 7 to 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Maeda is
reversed.
With the above-noted definition of handle, it is our determination that the claimed
handles are not readable on Batick's side walls 42 and 44 since Batick's side walls 42
and 44 are not designed to be held or operated with the hand. However, Batick's side
walls 42 and 44 are part of holding apparatus 30 which is designed to be held or
operated with the hand (i.e., one of the claimed handles). Moreover, it is our opinion
that the handles as set forth in claim 1 are readable on Batick's handle 10 and holding
apparatus 30.
Claim 1 is readable on Batick as follows: A fly cast training rod, comprising a
flexible shaft (Batick's fishing rod 11) attached to a pair of spaced handles (Batick's
handle 10 and holding apparatus 30) to allow a trainer and trainee to stand side-by-side
with each gripping one of said handles, whereby said trainee can follow said trainer in
order to get the feel and rhythm of proper casting technique (Batick's handle 10 and
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007