Appeal No. 2000-0693
Application 08/845,282
examiner’s explanation of the rejection as found on pages 4
and 5 of the examiner’s answer.
Reference is made to appellant’s brief and reply brief
(Paper Nos. 23 and 26) for appellant’s arguments regarding the
merits of the standing § 103 rejection.5
Discussion
As explained on pages 1-2 of the specification, an
objective of appellant is to improve upon the performance of
the inter-line fishing rod disclosed in JA ‘871. To this end,
appellant’s provide a coating film on the inner surface of the
inter-line fishing rod that is water-repellant and has a low
coefficient of friction. In order to further improve the
performance of the coating film, the thickness of the film is
provided with inner annular projections to reduce the area of
5 Submitted concurrently with the reply brief is the
declaration (improperly labeled “Affidavit”) of Tomoyoshi
Tsurufuji. In that the examiner has not considered this
declaration, it is not properly before us and will not be
considered. Based on our reading of 37 CFR § 1.195 and MPEP
§§ 1210 and 1211.02, it would appear that the examiner had
authority to consider this declaration, notwithstanding his
views to the contrary as expressed in the letter mailed
February 15, 2000 (Paper No. 27). In any event, in view of
our disposition of this appeal, appellant has not been
prejudiced by the examiner’s action in this regard.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007