Ex parte TAKIZAWA - Page 2

              Appeal No. 1999-1504                                                                      Page 2                
              Application No. 08/787,262                                                                                      

                      The appellant's invention relates to a fastener for attaching a fishing reel to a fishing               
              rod.  The fastener includes a bulge extending radially outward away from the longitudinal axis                  
              of the fishing rod as well as a constriction located between the bulge and a tip end of the fishing             
              rod.  According to appellant, the bulge increases the stability while grasping the fastener                     
              whereas the constriction is adapted to receive an angler's finger for precisely controlling minute              
              movements of the fishing rod (specification, page 2).  A copy of the claims on appeal appears                   
              in the appendix to the appellant's brief.                                                                       
                      The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed                
              claims are:                                                                                                     
              Ozeki et al. (Ozeki)          4,848,022                            Jul. 18, 1989                                
              Oyama                         5,115,591                            May 26, 1992                                 
                      The following rejections are before us for review.1                                                     
              1.      Claims 11, 12, 14 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as being anticipated                   
              by Ozeki.                                                                                                       
              2.      Claims 11-15, 25 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as being anticipated                    
              by Oyama.                                                                                                       
              3.      Claims 18-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Oyama.                     

                      The rejection under the judicially created doctrine of double patenting has apparently been withdrawn in1                                                                                                      
              view of the filing of a supplemental terminal disclaimer on July 21, 1998 (Paper No. 10).                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007