Ex parte TAKIZAWA - Page 4




              Appeal No. 1999-1504                                                                      Page 4                
              Application No. 08/787,262                                                                                      


              Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.                              
              denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).                                                                                   
                      Turning first to the examiner's rejection of independent claim 11 as being anticipated by               
              Ozeki, we note that claim 11 requires, inter alia, a primary body including a first hood for                    
              cooperating with the reel mounting means, a bulge opposite the first hood, an expanded portion                  
              and a constriction, and a secondary body including a second hood for cooperating with the reel                  
              mounting means, wherein "said primary body and said second hood are relatively rotatable."                      
              While Ozeki discloses, in the embodiment of Figures 1-5, a handle for a fishing rod comprising                  
              a primary body (reel attaching portion 3) having a first hood (hollow 9) and a second hood                      
              (fixing means 8), the second hood is not rotatable relative to the primary body, as required by                 
              the claim.  As for the embodiment of the handle illustrated in Figures  9-15, and discussed in                  
              column 5 of Ozeki, while the second hood (means 24) is movable longitudinally relative to a                     
              primary body (the reel attaching portion 23), as explained in column 5, lines 27-31, the means                  
              (24) is prevented from rotating (column 5, lines 25-26) and the reel attaching portion does not                 
              rotate.  Therefore, we conclude that Ozeki does not anticipate claim 11.                                        
                      Accordingly, we shall not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 11, or claims 12 and                
              14 which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as being anticipated by Ozeki.                              
                      With regard to the rejection of claim 25 based on Ozeki, the only argument presented in                 
              appellant's brief (page 9) is that Ozeki fails to teach the "bulge" and the "constriction" recited in           









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

Last modified: November 3, 2007