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