Appeal No. 2003-1981 Page 12
Application No. 09/715,684
invention except for the embodiment disclosed in Figures 5-6 clearly depict a handle
assembly including a plurality of handles secured together at their distal ends in a
spaced relation. The embodiment of Figures 5-6 portrays a training handle connected
to the periphery of a handle of a conventional fly rod. The training handle and the
handle of the conventional fly rod while spaced apart are not secured together at their
distal ends in a spaced relation. Batick's holding apparatus 30 is secured to the
periphery of handle 10 by clamps so that the holding apparatus 30 is spaced from the
handle 10. Batick's holding apparatus 30 is not secured to the distal end of handle 10
and therefore, Batick's handle 10 and holding apparatus 30 are not secured together at
their distal ends in a spaced relation.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1,
3, 4, 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Batick is affirmed with
respect to claims 1, 7 and 8 3 and reversed with respect to claims 3 and 4. Inasmuch
as the basic thrust of our affirmance of the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 1
differs from the rationale advanced by the examiner for the rejection, we hereby
designate the affirmance to be a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
3 The appellant has grouped claims 7 and 8 as standing or falling together (brief, p. 4). Thereby,
in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), claim 8 falls with claim 7.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007