Appeal No. 2006-0846
Application No. 10/068,695
The appellant argues that there would have been no
motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine
Shumate’s fishing reel which is primarily for cane pole fishing
with Zwayer’s disclosure of a hook keeper for a spincast fishing
reel (brief, pages 12-13). In addition to disclosing a hook
keeper, Zwayer teaches that his circular line opening provides
the benefits of smoothness and reduced fishing line abrasion
(col. 6, line 66 – col. 7, line 2). That teaching would have
fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a
circular line opening in Shumate’s housing to provide those
benefits.
The appellant argues that neither Shumate nor Zwayer
addresses the problem of backlash (brief, page 13). To
establish a prima facie case of obviousness, references need not
be combined for the purpose of solving the problem solved by the
appellant. See In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309,
1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24
USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688,
693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc), cert.
denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). The references would have led one
of ordinary skill in the art to combine their teachings to
obtain the above-discussed benefit of smoothness and reduced
fishing line abrasion.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007