Ex parte TAKIZAWA - Page 11




              Appeal No. 1999-1504                                                                     Page 11                
              Application No. 08/787,262                                                                                      


              written specification is silent with regard to the positioning of the center of the bulge and does              
              not state that the height of the bulge is continuously reduced from a point diametrically opposite              
              from the first/fixed hood (or securing means 28B) to a point diametrically opposite from the                    
              second/movable hood (or securing means 28A).  Moreover, it is apparent to us, based on our                      
              review of original Figures 3 and 4, that both the center and the peak height of the bulge are                   
              located to the left (the tip end side) of a point diametrically opposite from the first/fixed hood.             
              This, of course, also means that the height of the bulge either increases or remains constant for               
              a given longitudinal distance from the point diametrically opposite from the first/fixed hood                   
              toward the second/movable hood before it begins to decrease.                                                    
                      For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that appellant's originally filed disclosure does                
              not support the subject matter of claims 13, 18-22 and 26 as required by the first paragraph of                 
              35 U.S.C.  112.                                                                                                
                                                      CONCLUSION                                                              
                      To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 11, 12, 14 and 25 under 35                  
              U.S.C.  102(b) as being anticipated by Ozeki is affirmed as to claim 25 and reversed as to                     
              claims 11, 12 and 14.  The examiner's decision to reject claims 11-15, 25 and 26 under 35                       
              U.S.C.  102(b) as being anticipated by Oyama and claims 18-22 under 35 U.S.C.  103 as                         
              being unpatentable over Oyama  is affirmed as to claims 18-22 and 25 and reversed as to                         
              claims 11-15 and 26.  Additionally, a new ground of rejection of claims 13, 18-22 and 26                        









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

Last modified: November 3, 2007