Appeal No. 2006-0846
Application No. 10/068,695
d) means for controlling the rotation of said spool and
thereby dispensing said fishing line from said channel as said
spool rotates during the casting of a fishing lure and on to
said channel as said spool rotates during retrieval of said
fishing lure.
THE REFERENCES
Shakespeare, Jr. 1,869,441 Aug. 2, 1932
Shumate et al. (Shumate) 3,784,124 Jan. 8, 1974
Zwayer et al. (Zwayer) 6,070,822 Jun. 6, 2000
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1, 3, 4, 21
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Schumate;
claims 5-7, 11-17, 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Shumate in view of Zwayer;1 and claims 8-10, 18, 19, 25
and 26 over Shumate in view of Shakespeare.2
OPINION
We affirm the aforementioned rejections.
The appellant separately argues the claims in the following
groups: 1) 1, 2) 21, 3) 22, 4) 5, 13 and 23, 5) 6, 11, 14, 16
and 24, 6) 18 and 25, and 7) 9, 19 and 26 (brief, pages 8-18).
We therefore limit our discussion to claims 1, 21, 22 and one
claim in each of the other groups, i.e., claims 13, 6, 18 and 9.
The claims in each group stand or fall together, and the
dependent claims not in one of the groups stand or fall with the
1 We consider the examiner’s omission of claim 12, which depends from
claim 11, from the statement of the rejection to be inadvertent.
2 In the statement of the rejection (answer, page 6) the examiner erroneously
refers to claim 26 as claim 25.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007