Appeal 2007-1788
Application 09/766,032
imparted by spring 64 (i.e., the spring constant of the spring), Riead teaches
that the float buoyancy of the bobber is about or approximately the same as
the spring constant of the spring 64.
As to the limitation of allowing “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,” there is nothing in
the claim that requires that once the spring is in its fully displaced position
that the bobber be completely submerged. Giving the claim its broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the discussion above, we interpret
this limitation as requiring that the bobber be more submerged when the
spring is displaced, such as when a fish bites the baited hook, than before
any displacement of the spring, that is, the level of the bobber in the water
before the fish takes the bait. Given Riead’s description of the bobber
described by the patent, i.e.,, that the float buoyancy of the bobber (i.e., the
spring constant of the bobber in water) is only slightly greater than switch
sensitivity, upon a fish taking the bait, more of the bobber main body would
be submerged upon lighting of the lamp when compared to the level of
submersion of the bobber main body when no fish has taken the bait.
As to claim 19, Appellant argues that Riead does not teach a force to
displace the washer 62 as being substantially equal to the buoyant force of
body 2, such that when the washer is in the down position the body is
submerged (Br. 10). Rather, Appellant urges, Riead teaches the opposite by
teaching that the washer 62 is first displaced without submergence of the
body 2 to light the lamp in order to provide a visual cue that a fish has taken
the bait, and it is only after the light has been lit does the body submerge
(Br. 10).
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013