Ex parte TAKIZAWA - Page 5

              Appeal No. 1999-1504                                                                      Page 5                
              Application No. 08/787,262                                                                                      

              claim 25.  The examiner, on the other hand, finds that the Ozeki fishing rod handle comprises a                 
              primary body having a bulge (trigger 10) and a constriction (at D in Figure 1).  Upon                           
              examination of the Ozeki handle illustrated in Figures 1-3, we find that the trigger (10) is a                  
              "bulge"  and that the reel attaching portion (3) of the handle further comprises a portion, in the2                                                                                                       

              vicinity of the fixing means (8), of reduced cross-section relative to the trigger (i.e., a                     
              "constriction").  Accordingly, appellant's brief does not persuade us that the examiner has erred               
              in rejecting claim 25 as anticipated by Ozeki.  Therefore, we shall sustain the examiner's                      
              rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as being anticipated by Ozeki.3                                  
                      Turning next to the examiner's rejection of independent claim 11 as being anticipated by                
              Oyama, we find the examiner's assertion (page 3) that the portion of the handle (5) "just to the                
              right of 11 in Fig. 11 [sic: Fig. 4]" is a "constriction" of relatively reduced cross section with              
              respect to the "bulge" (cover cylinder 8) and the "expanded portion" (contact portion 11)                       
              untenable.  On the contrary, the region to the right of the contact portion 11 is of greater cross              
              section relative to the contact portion 11, as clearly illustrated in Figure 4 of Oyama.                        
              Therefore, we shall not sustain the examiner's rejection of independent claim 11, or of claims                  
              12-15 which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as being anticipated by Oyama.                           

                      A "bulge" is "an outward swelling; protuberance" (Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College2                                                                                                      
              Edition (Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1988)).                                                                         
                      While neither the appellant's brief nor the examiner's final rejection and answer specifically addresses3                                                                                                      
              the limitation of a "movable hood," we note, for the record, that, in the embodiment of Figures 9-15, the second hood
              (hold means 23h and means 24) for engaging the reel-foot of the reel attaching plate (27) is movable relative to the
              first, fixed hood (hollow 23b).                                                                                 

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

Last modified: November 3, 2007