Ex parte AKIBA et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 22, 2000

08811192 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 22, 2000)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 26
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MASARU AKIBA, MASAYUKI NAKAGAWA, TOMOYOSHI TSURUFUJI,
SHUNJI SUNAGA, and KOICHI ITO
____________
Appeal No. 2000-0530
Application No. 08/811,192
____________
HEARD: NOVEMBER 28, 2000
____________
Before COHEN, STAAB, and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
COHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 27,
28, and 35 through 46. These claims constitute all of the
claims remaining in the application.
Appellants’ invention pertains to a fishing rod and to an
inter-line fishing rod. A basic understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 27
Appeal No. 2000-0530
Application No. 08/811,192
1 Our understanding of this document is derived from a
reading of a translation thereof prepared in the United States
Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the translation is
appended to this opinion.
2
and 36, copies of which appear in the APPENDIX to the main
brief (Paper No. 19).
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied the
documents listed below:
Vance 4,209,931 Jul. 1,
1980
Carabasse 1,209,513 Oct.
21, 1970
(Great Britain)
Trifonov 1,717,045 Mar. 7,
1992
(Soviet Union) (SU ’045)1
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 27-28, and 35-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vance in view of SU ’045.
Claims 45-46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Vance, as applied to claims 27 and 36
above, further in view of Carabasse.
Appeal No. 2000-0530
Application No. 08/811,192
2 In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have
considered all of the disclosure of each document for what it
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA
1966). Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into
account not only the specific teachings, but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably have
been expected to draw from the disclosure. See In re Preda,
401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
3
The full text of the examiner’s rejections and response
to the argument presented by appellants appears in the final
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 14 and 20), while the
complete statement of appellants’ argument can be found in the
main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 19 and 22).

OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issues
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellants’ specification and claims, the applied
teachings,2 and the respective viewpoints of appellants and
the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Appeal No. 2000-0530
Application No. 08/811,192
4
The rejection of claims 27-28 and 35-44
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 27-28, and
35-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon the combined teachings
of Vance and SU ’045. Our reasoning follows.
Independent claim 27 is drawn to a fishing rod in which a
fishline is at least partially passed through a rod pipe, with
the rod pipe comprising, inter alia, a rod pipe main body
layer having an inner peripheral surface, a thin layer
comprising a water-repellant material disposed on the inner
peripheral surface, and a wear resistant annular fishline
guide member fixed to the thin layer and having a substantial
portion extending radially inwardly beyond the water-repellant
surface, wherein said main body layer, said thin layer, and
said guide member are integrally thermoformed. Independent
claim 28 addresses a fishing rod in which a fishline is at
least partially passed through a rod pipe comprising, inter
alia, a rod pipe main body layer having an inner peripheral
surface, a thin layer comprising a water-repellant material on
the inner peripheral surface, and a high strength wear
resistant member fixed to the thin layer at a radial innermost
Appeal No. 2000-0530
Application No. 08/811,192
5
portion of the thin layer, wherein said main body layer, said
thin layer, and said high strength wear resistant member are
integrally thermoformed. Independent claim 36 sets forth an
inter-line fishing rod comprising, inter alia, a rod pipe main
body layer defining an inner peripheral surface, a thin layer
comprising a water-repellant material disposed on the inner
peripheral surface, and at least one fishline guide member
fixed to the thin layer so that a portion of the guide member
is projected radially inwardly from the water-repellant
surface, wherein said main body layer, said thin layer, and
said guide member are integrally thermoformed. Independent
claim 37 is drawn to an inter-line fishing rod comprising,
inter alia, a rod pipe main body layer defining an inner
peripheral surface; and a thin layer disposed on the inner
peripheral surface, the thin layer comprising a water-
repellant material and a high-strength material mixed
together, the high-strength material being more wear resistant
than the water-repellant material, wherein the main body layer
and the thin layer are integrally thermoformed.
Independent claim 38 sets forth an inter-line fishing rod
comprising, inter alia, a rod pipe main body layer defining an
Appeal No. 2000-0530
Application No. 08/811,192
6
inner peripheral surface; and a thin layer disposed on the
inner peripheral surface, the thin layer defining a plurality
of closely spaced recessed portions defined by high strength
members embedded in the layer and projecting radially inward
between the recessed portions so that the recessed portions
are adapted to receive water-repellant material, the high
strength members being more wear resistant than the water-
repellant material, wherein the main body layer, the thin
layer, and the high strength members are integrally
thermoformed. Independent claim 40 is drawn to an inter-line
fishing rod comprising, inter alia, a rod pipe main body layer
defining an inner peripheral surface; and a thin layer
defining an internal surface and disposed on the inner
peripheral surface, at least one fishline guide member
embedded within the thin layer so that a portion of the
fishline guide member is projected radially inwardly from the
internal surface, wherein the main body layer, the thin layer,
and the guide member are integrally thermoformed.
We turn now to the evidence of obviousness.
Appeal No. 2000-0530
Application No. 08/811,192
7
The patent to Vance provides an eyeless fishing rod 10
wherein fishing line passes through the hollow bore of the rod
(Fig. 1). A cylindrical tip member 11A fits over the end of
the rod and includes a cavity 14 with a ceramic bushing 15
bonded therein. As explained by the patentee, the bushing
prevents snagged lines and reduces to a minimum the drag of
the fishing line passing over the surface thereof (column 2,
lines 54 through 64). Vance also teaches (column 4, lines 36
through 51) that the interior of the rod may be coated with a
low friction material (TFE) to reduce the drag on the line.
The SU ’045 reference discloses a fishing rod whose
fishing line passes through pass-through rings fixed in the
cavity of the fishing rod. A stated object of the invention
is indicated as increasing the elasticity of a whip-like part
and precluding adhesion of wet fishing line to the whip-like
part (translation, page 2). The fishing rod includes three
telescopically connected fishing rod sections 1, 2, and 3 and
an elastic or flexible fourth section 4 consisting of at least
two parallel whip-like elements. Porcelain passing-through
rings 12 are removably mounted by wire fittings 13, 14, and 15
Appeal No. 2000-0530
Application No. 08/811,192
8
in rod sections 2 and 3. Rod-section 4 has three pass-through
rings 12 and a butt-end ring 16 fixed in place.
Contrary to the view of the examiner, it is our opinion
that the collective teachings of Vance and SU ’045 would not
have suggested the present invention to one having ordinary
skill in the art. As we see it, each of Vance and SU ’045
clearly reveal distinct, alternative configurations for
passing a line through a hollow bore fishing rod. As such,
absent reliance upon impermissible hindsight, it is not
apparent to us that one having ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to selectively alter the fishing rod of
Vance in light of the SU ’045 teaching, as proposed by the
examiner, to thereby yield the fishing rod of independent
claims 27, 28, 36, 37, 38, and 40. We also perceive that each
of these reference teachings would not have been suggestive of
a fishing rod structure with components thereof being
Appeal No. 2000-0530
Application No. 08/811,192
3 Consistent with appellants’ specification (page 47), we
understand the recitation of "integrally thermoformed" in each
of the independent claims to denote that the assembly of
components of the fishing rod was subjected to a thermoforming
procedure that encompassed heating, burning, and
pressurization.
9
"integrally thermoformed" as claimed.3 It is for this reason
that the rejection must be reversed.
The rejection of claims 45-46
We reverse the rejection of claims 45-46 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
As to dependent claims 45 and 46, the examiner relies
upon the earlier described teachings of Vance and SU ’045,
taken with the disclosure of spiral line guide 5 by Carabasse
(Fig. 2). In the examiner’s view, it would have been obvious
to provide the modified fishing rod of Vance with a spiral
line guide based upon the Carabasse teaching.
Notwithstanding the referenced teaching of a spiral line
guide by Carabasse, we conclude that the Carabasse document,
as it is applied by the examiner, does not overcome the
Appeal No. 2000-0530
Application No. 08/811,192
10
deficiencies of the Vance and SU ’045 references discussed,
supra. Thus, the rejection of claims 45 and 46 must be
reversed.
In summary, this panel of the board has not sustained
each of the examiner’s rejections of appellants’ claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal No. 2000-0530
Application No. 08/811,192
11
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LAWRENCE J. STAAB ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2000-0530
Application No. 08/811,192
12
BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH
8110 GATEHOUSE ROAD
SUITE 500 EAST
FALLS CHURCH, VA 22042
APPEAL NO. 2000-0530 - JUDGE
COHEN
APPLICATION NO. 08/811,192
APJ COHEN
APJ NASE
APJ STAAB
DECISION:
Prepared By:
DRAFT TYPED: 19 Mar 02
FINAL TYPED: