Appeal No. 1998-2552
Application No. 08/292,977
examiner has failed to show the corresponding structures in the
applied prior art for the first, second and third means recited
in claims 31 and 33, namely the hand bar 18, the annular over-
cladding tube sealing-up part 20, and the supporting handle tube
14, respectively (see the specification, page 6, last line; page
7, lines 9 and 17; and Figure 3). The examiner has also failed
to allege that any of the structures of Takahashi are the
“equivalents thereof” within the meaning of the sixth paragraph
of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112. Accordingly, we determine that the examiner has failed
to present any factual basis to support the rejections on
appeal.
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Brief
and Reply Brief, the rejection of claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Takahashi is reversed. Similarly, the rejection of claim 31
under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Takahashi in view of Baumgart is reversed.
C. Summary
The rejection of the claims on appeal under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is reversed. The rejection of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007