Appeal 2007-1788
Application 09/766,032
GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring-in-part and dissenting-
in-part.
I agree with the majority that Riead anticipates claim 22. However, I
do not agree that Riead anticipates claims 18 and 19. I would reverse the
rejection of those claims.
Claim 18 requires the bobber to have “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 main body
is approximately equal to the total force to submerge the bobber main body”
(emphases added). Similarly, claim 19 requires that the “force to displace
said member to a down position is substantially equal to the buoyant force
of the bobber main body” (emphasis added). I do not agree that Riead meets
these limitations.
The instant Specification describes and illustrates two embodiments of
the disclosed bobber:
[In] the two-stage fishing bobber of Figures 2-4 the force
required to depress spring 12 is sufficiently less than the force
required to submerge the bobber main body 15. . . . An alternate
preferred embodiment of the invention is to have the force
required to completely depress the spring 12 approximately
equal to the buoyancy force of bobber main body 15. This
embodiment is illustrated in Figures 11- 13.
(Specification 9: 6-20.) Thus, the Specification describes the embodiment of
Figures 2-4 as having a spring constant “sufficiently less” than the bobber’s
buoyant force (see also Specification 7: 24 to 8:23), while in the
embodiment of Figures 11-13 the spring constant is “approximately equal”
to the bobber’s buoyant force (see also Specification 15: 1 to 17:4).
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013