Ex Parte Fasola

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 30, 2008

10636891 (B.P.A.I. May. 30, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte JOSEPH M. FASOLA
__________

Appeal 2007-4529
Application 10/636,891
Technology Center 1600
__________

Decided: May 30, 2008
__________

Before, DONALD E. ADAMS, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and
LORA M. GREEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MILLS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134. The Examiner has rejected
the claims for obviousness. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2007-4529
Application 10/636,891

Claim 6 is representative.
6. A fishing rod holder comprising:
a substantially hollow housing including a top surface having a front
edge; said housing further including a pair of opposing sidewalls, a front
wall and a rear wall depending from said top surface; said rear wall inwardly
and obliquely depending from said top surface such that said housing has a
substantially triangular cross-sectional configuration;
an elongated, substantially U-shaped lip secured to the top surface of
said housing and longitudinally positioned along the front edge thereof for
suspending said housing from a support surface;
a plurality of tubular fishing rod holders received within said housing
and depending from the top surface thereof, said rod holders being parallel
to said rear wall to suspend a rod at a predetermined angle relative to a
vertical plane.

Cited References
Kaempf US 1,263,323 Apr. 16, 1918
Hermanson US 3,659,369 May 2, 1972
Stoudt US 4,865,287 Sept. 12, 1989

Grounds of Rejection
Claims 6-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Kaempf in view of Stoudt and Hermanson.

DISCUSSION
Background
This invention concerns a fishing rod holder designed
particularly for mounting within a pickup truck bed to conveniently
transport a plurality of fishing rods. (Spec.1.)
2
Appeal 2007-4529
Application 10/636,891

The Examiner finds that
[t]he patents to Kaempf and Stoudt shows pole holders.
Kaempf shows a hollow housing having a top surface 3 having
a front edge and means 5-6 for securing the housing to a
support surface. Means 5 can be considered as a front wall.
Kaempf shows a rear wall 1. Kaempf shows holes 7-8 for
securing rods within the housing. Surface 3 can be considered
as the top surface by turning Fig. 2 90 degrees to the left. The
patent to Stoudt shows a pole holder 10 having a plurality of
tubular rod holders 20, 22, 24 received within the housing 50
and extending to the top surface thereof. The patent to
Hermanson shows a pole holder having a housing 24, 34, 24a,
34a, and a U-shaped lip 26, 27, 26a, 27a secured to the top of
the housing to secure to housing to a support surface 17-18.

(Final Rejection 2-3.)

The Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to provide Kaempf with a plurality
of pole holders as shown by Stoudt to guide the poles all the
way into the housing as shown by Stoudt. . . . [I]t would have
been further obvious to provide Kaempf with a U-shaped lip as
shown by Hermanson to secure the housing to a support surface
with a top edge wall since merely one support is being
substituted for another and the function is the same.

(Final Rejection 3.)

In contrast, Appellant argues that
[i]n determining that Kaempf also discloses or anticipates
the front wall of the housing, the examiner noted that “[M]eans
5 can be considered as a front wall.” Element 5 refers to a pair
of outwardly extending ears that obliquely extend from the ends
of the device to fasten it to a support surface.

(Br. 4-5.)
3
Appeal 2007-4529
Application 10/636,891

Appellant further argues that, “[t]he element [5] in no way relates to a
front wall of a triangular-shaped housing with fishing rod holders as
claimed.” (Br. 5.)
When determining whether a claim is obvious, an Examiner must
make “a searching comparison of the claimed invention – including all its
limitations – with the teaching of the prior art.” In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565,
1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (emphasis added). Thus, “obviousness requires a
suggestion of all limitations in a claim.” CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern.
Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d
981, 985 (CCPA 1974)). Moreover, as the Supreme Court recently stated,
“there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning
to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int'l v. Teleflex
Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added)).
We agree with Appellant and find that Kaempf fails to disclose a
fishing rod holder having a top surface, front wall, rear wall and sidewalls,
as claimed, and thus also fails to disclose a housing that has a substantially
triangular cross-sectional configuration, as claimed. We further find that
Stoudt and Hermanson fail to overcome this deficiency of Kaempf.
In view of the above, the obviousness rejection is reversed.
SUMMARY
The obviousness rejection is reversed.
REVERSED

4
Appeal 2007-4529
Application 10/636,891

KENNETH L. TOLAR
2908 Hessmer Avenue
Metairie LA 70002

lp
5