Kazunori Takenouchi et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 19, 2019

14415103 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/415,103 01/15/2015 Kazunori Takenouchi 114324-535US1 2263
109007 7590 12/19/2019
Procopio / KYOCERA Corporation
Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP
525 B Street
Suite 2200
San Diego, CA 92101
EXAMINER
LARSEN, JEFFREY R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing@procopio.com
pattric.rawlins@procopio.com
uspatents@procopio.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAZUNORI TAKENOUCHI, KAZUAKI TAKIGAWA,
YUKI SONODA, and KAZUHITO OMURA
Appeal 2019-002596
Application 14/415,103
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, DANIEL S. SONG, and
CHARLES N. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–6, 10, and 11. See Final Act. 1.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Kyocera Corporation.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002596
Application 14/415,103
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a fishing line guide member, and fishing
line guide and fishing rod provided with the same. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A fishing line guide member, comprising:
a guide member having a ring shape which defines an
inner circumferential side space serving as a guide hole for a
fishing line and has a curve surface curved from an inner
circumferential side toward an outer circumferential side of the
ring shape in a cross-sectional view with respect to a cross-
section of the guide member taken along a cut plane including an
axis line L of the guide member which passes through a center
of the guide hole for the fishing line,
the curve surface of the guide member having
a maximum width W in the cross-sectional view
demarcated by boundary line B-B' extending through the curve
surface in a direction parallel to the axis line L passing through
the center of the guide hole and a maximum thickness T in the
cross-sectional view in a direction transverse to axis line L and
demarcated by boundary line A-A' extending from the inner
circumferential side to the outer circumferential side of the guide
member;
the inner circumferential side being on a side of the guide
hole for the fishing line, the outer circumferential side being
opposed to the guide hole for the fishing line, and the boundary
line B-B' through the curve surface demarcating the inner
circumferential side from the outer circumferential side of the
curve surface,
an inner circumferential side curve surface of the curve
surface comprising:
a first curve surface portion having a curvature radius R1
and extending from an inner end A of boundary line A-A' to ends
of a boundary line D-D' parallel to and spaced from boundary
line B-B';
a second curve surface portion having a curvature radius
R2 and extending from the ends of boundary line D-D' to ends of
Appeal 2019-002596
Application 14/415,103
3
boundary line B-B', where curvature radius R1 is larger than
curvature radius R2; and
a third curve surface portion having a curvature radius R3
and being located on the outer circumferential side of the curve
surface and extending from the ends of boundary line B-B',
the radius R1 being greater than radius R2, and the radius
R3 being equal to or greater than radius R2, and
a ratio T/W of the maximum thickness T to the maximum
width W being 0.2 or more and 0.7 or less.
(Claims App. A-1–A-2).
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Ohmura US 6,067,743 May 30, 2000

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Final Act. 2.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Ohmura. Final Act. 3.
OPINION
Indefiniteness
In the Advisory Action of May 1, 2018 the Examiner indicated
Appellant’s proposed amendment of March 21, 2018, which included
deleting the two instances of the word “the,” which the Examiner considered
to raise an antecedent basis issue (Final Act. 2), would be entered for
Appeal 2019-002596
Application 14/415,103
4
purposes of appeal. Appellant correctly pointed out both in the remarks
entered March 21, 2018 (“Remarks”) and in the Appeal brief that the other
basis for the Examiner’s holding of indefiniteness was premised on the
erroneous determination that ratios require a unit of measure. Remarks at 5;
App. Br. 5. The Examiner did not include any discussion of indefiniteness in
the Advisory Action when indicating how the amended claims would be
rejected or indicate the status of the indefiniteness rejection in the Answer.
Rather, in the Answer, the Examiner summarily stated, “[e]very ground of
rejection set forth in the Office action dated 01/22/2018 from which the
appeal is taken is being maintained by the examiner.” Ans. 3. To the extent
the indefiniteness rejection remains pending we reverse this rejection for the
reasons stated by Appellant. App. Br. 5.

Anticipation
Regarding the contested limitation requiring “R3 being equal to or
greater than radius R1” (App. Br. 9) the Examiner’s rejection states, in its
entirety on this point: “[see e.g. Examiner-annotated FIG. 22 below and
FIGS. 24, 25].” Final Act. 4. In response to Appellant’s arguments in the
Final Action the Examiner reproduced the same annotated figure and
asserted “Radius R3 is ‘equal to or greater than radius R2’. Thus, Ohmura
teaches radius R3 ‘being equal to or greater than radius R2’.” Final Act. 7. In
the Answer, the Examiner states, “Examiner annotated FIG. 22 of Ohmura
shows . . . a curvature radius R3 that is equal to or greater than radius R2
where the curvature radius equals the radius of the circular arc which best
approximates the curve at a particular point.” Answer 4.
Appellant reasonably argued based on the Examiner’s annotation
without further explanation in the Final Action that the Examiner appears to
Appeal 2019-002596
Application 14/415,103
5
have conflated “curvature radius” with arc length. App. Br. 6. However, the
Examiner’s comment from the Answer, reproduced above, appears to
indicate that the Examiner was not equating arc length to curvature radius.
This being the case, it is unclear how the Examiner can consider the section
labeled by the Examiner as R3 as having a larger or equal radius of
curvature to the section labeled by the Examiner as R2. The general rule is
that precise dimensions or proportions should not be deduced from patent
drawings not indicated as drawn to scale.2 Based on the figure reproduced
by the Examiner alone reasonable minds may differ as to whether the section
labeled R3 has a larger radius of curvature than the section labeled by the
Examiner as R2. The fact that the drawing does not clearly convey the
relative curvatures of these areas demonstrates that the drawing is
inconclusive on this point and, thus, cannot be relied upon to show R3 being
equal to or greater than radius R2. Thus, the drawing does not sufficiently
disclose the relationship between the radii in question.
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). As the Examiner has not established how the
limitation requiring “R3 being equal to or greater than radius R2” is satisfied
by the cited prior art, the Examiner’s anticipation rejection cannot be
sustained on the basis presently set forth.

2 See, e.g., Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int'l, 222 F.3d 951,
956 (Fed. Cir. 2000). (“[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not
define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to
show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.”).
Appeal 2019-002596
Application 14/415,103
6
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–6,
10, 11
112(b) indefinite 1, 2, 4–6,
10, 11
1, 2, 4, 5, 6,
10, 11
102(b) Ohmura 1, 2, 4–6,
10, 11
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–6,
10, 11

REVERSED