Appeal 2007-1788
Application 09/766,032
First, the fact that the washer would be submerged before the main
body of the body is submerged is irrelevant, as there is nothing in the claim
that requires that the main body of the bobber to be submerged before the
“member resiliently displaceable with respect to said bobber main body,”
i.e., the washer. Moreover, as taught by Appellant, it is the action of the
spring and the spring constant that provides the gradual resistance
(Specification, 14). Thus as the bobber of Riead also has a spring with a
spring constant that is displaced by a fish taking the bait, the bobber of Riead
would also inherently provide gradual resistance. “[W]hen the PTO shows
sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art
are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In
re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“When the claimed compositions are not novel they are not rendered
patentable by recitation of properties, whether or not these properties are
shown or suggested in the prior art.” Id. at 709, 15 USPQ2d at 1658.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we find that Riead teaches all of the limitations of claims
18, 19, and 22, and the rejection is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013