Appeal No. 2005-0564
Application No. 09/732,787
Claims 4 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the admitted prior art and Gerrans.
Claims 6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the admitted prior art and Gerrans and further
in view of Hauchard.
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, reference is
made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
Appellant and the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made
by Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the
brief have not been considered (37 CFR § 41.67(c)(1)(vii)).
OPINION
The Examiner relies on the admitted prior art for teaching
all the elements of the recited claim except for the continuously
reduced portion (answer, page 3). The Examiner, however, reasons
that the missing limitation is disclosed by Gerrans as molded
portion 16 wherein the continuously reduced portion, in its rear
end portion, has the same diameter as that of cable 22 and
provides a smoother grip on the molded portion (id.).
Appellant argues that providing a “smoother grip” is nowhere
disclosed in Gerrans (brief, page 5; reply brief, page 2).
Appellant further asserts that it would not be clear how the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007