Appeal No. 2005-0455
Application No. 09/974,341
the claimed living hinge that is capable of holding a fishing
line when the mating halves are interlocked. The only
explanation given by the examiner for this deficiency in the
combined teachings of the references is that "[i]t would have
further been obvious to hold the line in the hinge since the
function is the same and no showing of unexpected results was
made" (page 3 of Answer, second full sentence). To the extent
the examiner's position is based upon obvious design choice,
appellant explains that the claimed structure for accommodating
the fishing line avoids the problem of permitting the line to
slip its way between the mating halves of the bobber, as
discussed by Sitzler at column 3, lines 60 et. seq. Moreover, it
is axiomatic that a showing of unexpected results is not
necessary until the examiner establishes a prima facie case of
nonobviousness. Inasmuch as the applied references, either
singularly or in combination, fail to teach or suggest the
claimed hinge which holds a fishing line, we find that the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness.
Moreover, we concur with appellant that neither reference
teaches or suggests the claimed mating halves that are configured
to interlock when they are pressed together in matching
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007