Appeal 2007-1788
Application 09/766,032
invention, either explicitly or inherently. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d
1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We agree with the
Examiner that Riead teaches all of the limitations of claims 18, 19, and 22,
and the rejection is affirmed.
Appellant argues that Riead does not show that spring 64 has a spring
constant to compress the spring 64 with respect to the main body 2
“approximately equal to the total force to submerge the bobber main body 2
and Riead’s washer 62 ‘ . . . to thereby allow the simultaneous submersion of
the bobber main body and the displacement of the member with respect to
the bobber main body so as to provide gradual resistance . . .’ as called for in
Appellant’s claims 18 and 19.” (Br. 8.) Appellant points to column 5, lines
1-25 of Riead, which teaches that the spring 64 has a tension that provides
sufficient sensitivity to the lamp switch 40 such that the lamp is lighted by
an additional leader load less than that required to submerge the float
completely (Br. 8-9). Thus, Appellant argues, as Riead teaches that the
compression of spring 64, which leads to the lighting of the lamp by an
additional leader load less than that required to submerge the float
completely, that Riead does not teach the subject matter of claims 18 and 19
as the patent does not provide for “simultaneous submersion of the bobber
main body and the displacement of the member with respect to the bobber
main body so as to provide gradual resistance.” (Br. 9.)
Claim 18 requires: (1) a bobber main body, said bobber main body
providing a buoyant force to normally maintain the bobber main body in a
floating condition; and (2) a spring having a spring constant that is about
equal to the spring constant of the bobber in water or the total force to
compress the spring with respect to the bobber mail body is approximately
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013