Ex parte TAKIZAWA - Page 6




              Appeal No. 1999-1504                                                                      Page 6                
              Application No. 08/787,262                                                                                      


                      The only argument presented in the appeal brief (page 12) with regard to the rejection                  
              of claim 25 as being anticipated by Oyama is that Oyama fails to disclose a "bulge" and                         
              "constriction."  From our viewpoint, the cover cylinder (8) has a "bulge" therein, while the                    
              portion of the cover cylinder (8) in the vicinity of the contact portion (11) is a "constriction"               
              having a reduced cross section as compared with the peak of the bulge of the cover cylinder 8).                 
              It follows then that appellant's brief does not persuade us that the examiner has erred in                      
              rejecting claim 25 under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as anticipated by Oyama.   Accordingly, we shall4                                        

              sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 25 as being anticipated by Oyama.                                     
                      With regard to claim 26, however, we find ourselves in agreement with appellant (brief,                 
              page 12) that the height of the cover cylinder (8) of Oyama, as seen in Figure 4, first increases               
              along the direction from a point "diametrically opposite the fixed hood" (2) toward the movable                 
              hood (7) until the peak height is reached, at which point the height then decreases to a point                  
              diametrically opposite the movable hood (7).  Thus, it is clear that Oyama lacks disclosure of a                
              reel seat wherein a height of the bulge "is continuously reduced from a first point diametrically               
              opposite from the fixed hood to a second point diametrically opposite from the movable hood"                    
              as required by claim 26.  It follows that we cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 26.               
                                                 The obviousness rejection                                                    


                      Although these limitations were not addressed in appellant's brief, we note, for the record, that the4                                                                                                      
              Oyama fishing rod handle device comprises a movable hood (7), a fixed hood (2) and a seat base (including cover 
              cylinder 8 and handle 5) extending between the fixed and movable hoods and surrounding the fishing rod (1) in the
              vicinity of the fixed hood (2).                                                                                 







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

Last modified: November 3, 2007