GLOBERIDE, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 2, 2020

14345383 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2020)

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.
14/345,383 03/17/2014 Masayuki Watanabe GLO-19-1316 (426594-29) 4982
35811 7590 07/02/2020
IP GROUP OF DLA PIPER LLP (US)
ONE LIBERTY PLACE
1650 MARKET ST, SUITE 5000
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
EXAMINER
LARSEN, JEFFREY R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2020 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):
pto.phil@us.dlapiper.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MASAYUKI WATANABE, NORIO NASU, and
MASARU AKIBA
Appeal 2019-006995
Application 14/345,383
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JAMES P. CALVE, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, 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 1–12. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Globeride, Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-006995
Application 14/345,383

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is directed to “a fishing line guide that is
formed of a resin material impregnating a reinforced fiber, and a fishing rod
including the fishing line guide.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A fishing line guide comprising a fishing line guide section
guiding a fishing line along a fishing rod, a first leg portion
extending in a first direction from an end portion of the fishing
line guide section and having a fixed portion disposed at a tip,
and a second leg portion branching from either one of the end
portion of the fishing line guide section and the first leg portion
to extend in a second direction and having a fixed portion
disposed at a tip are integrally configured, the fishing line guide
comprising:
a first fiber-reinforced resin sheet, a second
fiber-reinforced resin sheet, and a third fiber-reinforced resin
sheet;
each sheet comprising a laminated structure with a flat
bonding surface, the laminated structure comprising a plurality
of sheet-shaped synthetic resins containing reinforced fibers
that are laminated together,
where the laminated structure of the first fiber-reinforced
resin sheet forms the fishing line guide section and the first leg
portion;
where the laminated structure of the second
fiber-reinforced resin sheet is fixed to the first fiber-reinforced
resin sheet via their flat bonding surfaces, the second
fiber-reinforced resin sheet branching to a branching position
from which the second leg portion branches;
where the laminated structure of the third fiber-reinforced
resin sheet extends from the first leg portion to the second leg
portion through the branching position and is fixed to the first
fiber-reinforced resin sheet and the second fiber-reinforced
resin sheet via its flat bonding surface; and
a branching gap member disposed in a gap that is formed
at the branching position and is surrounded by the first
Appeal 2019-006995
Application 14/345,383

3
fiber-reinforced resin sheet, the second fiber-reinforced sheet,
and the third fiber-reinforced sheet, the branching gap member
and the gap being surrounded by each of the flat bonding
surfaces of the first fiber-reinforced resin sheet, the second
fiber-reinforced resin sheet, and the third fiber-reinforced resin
sheet and positioned at the branching position,
wherein the first direction is a forward direction along the
fishing rod, and
wherein the second direction is a backward direction
along the fishing rod.
REJECTION
Claims 1–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Akiba et al. (US 2011/0239519 A1, published Oct. 6, 2011, hereinafter
“Akiba”).
OPINION
Claims 1–5
Appellant groups independent claims 1, 2, and 5 together, and does
not present any separate arguments for claims 3 and 4, which depend from
claim 1. We decide the appeal of the rejection of claims 1–5 on the basis of
claim 2, and claims 1 and 3–5 stand or fall with claim 2. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (permitting the Board to select a single claim to decide the
appeal as to a single ground of rejection of a group of claims argued
together).
The Examiner finds that the Figure 20 embodiment of Akiba discloses
a fishing line guide as recited in claim 2, including, in pertinent part, first,
second, and third fiber-reinforced resin sheets (fiber bundles 25, 25B, 25C
formed from stacked prepreg sheets 25c), each of which is formed by
stacking a number of sheets forming a laminated structure as shown in
Appeal 2019-006995
Application 14/345,383

4
Figure 12G, and a branching gap member (reinforcing member 100)
disposed in a gap formed at the branching position (the triangular gap
surrounded by fiber bundles 25, 25B, 25C illustrated in Figure 20. See Final
Act. 3–4.
Appellant argues that Akiba’s member 100 is not provided at a gap
formed at a branching position and is not surrounded by resin sheets, as
recited in claim 2. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant’s argument focuses
specifically on the location (opening region 200) of reinforcing member 100
shown in Figure 26A of Akiba. Id. (contending that this “location of
member 100 of Akiba is simply not the same or equivalent to the location of
the ‘gap’ of claims 1, 2, and 5”).
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because Akiba discloses that a
reinforcing member can be placed at a gap of any branch part divided in two
legs or at a region in which the fiber bundle is curved, which would include
center part P2 of branch 30A of Figure 20. See, e.g., Akiba ¶¶ 110, 160.
Further, Akiba points out that a branch may be formed at various positions,
including at branch 30A in the embodiment of Figure 20. Id. ¶ 108.
Appellant argues that Akiba’s disclosure of lowering the relative
rigidity at the branch by increasing the ratio of the synthetic resin at center
parts P1, P2 appears to teach away from providing a branching gap member
in a gap surrounded by sheets as recited in claims 1, 2, and 5. Appeal Br. 13
(citing Akiba ¶ 109). This argument is not persuasive because Akiba
discloses that reinforcing member 100 may be made of synthetic resin.
Akiba ¶¶ 159–160. Notably, claim 2 does not specify the material, or any
material properties, of the “branching gap member,” and, thus, does not
exclude a reinforcing member having a relatively higher ratio of synthetic
Appeal 2019-006995
Application 14/345,383

5
resin. Further, Appellant’s Specification discloses synthetic resin as a
suitable branching gap member material. Spec. ¶ 27.
Appellant additionally argues that “Akiba does not relate to using
sheets, but rather to a fiber bundle that is itself made from sheets.” Appeal
Br. 15. Appellant contends that the fiber bundle illustrated in Figure 12G,
which is “formed by stacking a plurality of prepreg sheets 25c cut in a
narrow width,” has a configuration that “is totally different than the recited
sheet that contains fibers therein.” Id. (quoting Akiba ¶ 100). Appellant
fails to persuade us that the Examiner errs in reading the claimed “fiber-
reinforced resin sheet” on the type of fiber bundle illustrated in Figure 12G
of Akiba. Akiba describes the fiber bundle of Figure 12G as being formed
by stacking a number of prepreg sheets 25c cut in a narrow width, wherein
each prepreg sheet 25c comprises synthetic resin impregnating a number of
fibers arranged side by side. Akiba ¶ 100, Fig. 12G. The fact that Akiba’s
stacked prepreg sheets 25c are cut in a narrow width does not change the
fact that they are sheets, albeit sheets of narrow width. In this regard, we
note that, once frame 8 of Appellant’s fishing line guide is cut from prepreg
molded article 20, which is itself formed from three fiber-reinforced
laminated sheets, the sheets are of narrow width. The fact that the sheets
forming Akiba’s fishing guide frame are cut to narrow width before being
joined together and formed into the fishing guide, while Appellant joins the
sheets together first to form a prepreg molded article from which one or
more frames 8 are cut, as illustrated in Appellant’s Figure 6a, does not
Appeal 2019-006995
Application 14/345,383

6
distinguish the end product (i.e., the fishing line guide) of Akiba from
Appellant’s claimed fishing line guide.2
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 2. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 2, and of
claims 1 and 3–5, which fall with claim 2.
Claims 9–11
Claims 9–11 depend from claims 1, 2, and 5, respectively, and further
recite “wherein the branching gap member is adhered to each of the flat
bonding surfaces of each of the first, second, and third fiber-reinforced resin
sheets.” Claims App. Appellant groups these claims together in contesting
the rejection. Appeal Br. 16–17. We decide the appeal on the basis of claim
10, and claims 9 and 11 stand or fall with claim 10. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant essentially reiterates the argument, discussed above, that
Akiba’s reinforcing member 100 is not disposed in the location called for in
claims 1, 2, and 5, but, instead, is provided in opening region 200 between
two branch legs of its front leg. Appeal Br. 16. This argument is not
persuasive, for the reasons discussed above.
Appellant further contends that Akiba fails to disclose a branching gap
member that is “adhered to each of the flat bonding surfaces of the recited
resin sheets,” as claimed. Appeal Br. 16. In addressing this limitation, the
Examiner explains that Akiba’s reinforcing member 100 may be arranged at
a gap part of a branch part, is made of the same fiber-reinforced synthetic
resin material as the fiber bundle for molding the frame, and may employ an

2 Notably, Appellant’s claims are directed to the fishing line guide itself, not
to any particular method of making the fishing line guide.
Appeal 2019-006995
Application 14/345,383

7
adhesive rubber based resin. Final Act. 9 (citing Akiba ¶¶ 94, 159, 160); see
also Akiba ¶ 144 (disclosing molding the frame). Appellant does not
identify any deficiencies or error in the Examiner’s findings with respect to
the limitation of claim 10.
Thus, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim
10. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 10, and of claims 9 and
11, which fall with claim 10.
Claim 12
Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and further recites that “the first leg
portion has an opening region of a V shape provided below the fishing line
guide section.” Claims App. Akiba expressly discloses such a V-shaped
opening (through hole 7A) between sides 7a and 7b of connection part 7 in
the first three disclosed embodiments (Figures 1, 10, 11, 13, and 15), as well
as the “preferred” embodiment of Figure 22 (see Akiba ¶¶ 43, 146), but does
not expressly indicate whether either of connecting parts 57, 58 of the
embodiment of Figure 20 is comprised of branching sides, such as sides 7a
and 7b, with a V-shaped opening, such as through hole 7A, between them.
The Examiner appears to rely on Akiba’s disclosure in paragraph 116 that
“the structure described above may also be applied to the fishing line guide
type shown in FIG. 20” as indicating that the left and right sides with
through hole structure of connection part 7 of the first three embodiments
also applies to connecting parts 57, 58 of the Figure 20 embodiment. Final
Act. 10; see also Ans. 9 (stating that “[i]t is any part of the structure that
may be applied to the fishing line guide shown in FIG. 20 and not just the
curved portions and connecting parts”).
Appeal 2019-006995
Application 14/345,383

8
Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s interpretation of paragraph
116 of Akiba and argues that, “upon closer reading of paragraph [0116] . . .
of Akiba, the structure that may also be applied to the fishing line guide
shown in FIG. 20–at best–refers instead to the curved portions 82, 83 and
connecting parts 57, 58.” Appeal Br. 23. According to Appellant:
When considered in context, para. [0116] would reasonably be
construed as referring, at best, to the curved portions 82, 83 and
connection parts 57,58 as opposed to any and every part of the
fishing guide shown in Fig. 20. Indeed, para. [0116] offers
clarification by stating:
... [t]hat is, in the two-leg type of fishing line guide ... the
amount of reinforced fiber of the curved portions 82, 83
may be larger than that of the connecting parts 57, 58, or
the ratio (weight %) of synthetic resin may be higher than
that of the connecting parts 57, 58, or the connecting part
57, 58 may be formed thicker, the sectional area may be
larger... (Emphasis added.)
Thus, it is apparent that para. [0116] refers specifically to the
configuration of the curved portions 82, 83 and connection
parts 57,58 and not “any part of the structure.”
Reply Br. 1.
Although the Examiner’s interpretation of “the structure described
above” in paragraph 116 of Akiba as referring to all of the structure
disclosed in the entirety of the portion of the written specification preceding
paragraph 116 is a plausible interpretation, Appellant’s interpretation of this
language as referring specifically to the curved portions 82, 83 formed
between fixing parts 75, 76 and connecting parts 57, 58 is at least equally
plausible. Paragraph 115 discusses the relative amounts of reinforced fiber
in fixing part 6, the curved portion of fixing part 6, and connection part 7.
Paragraph 116 begins by stating that “the structure described above may also
Appeal 2019-006995
Application 14/345,383

9
be applied to the fishing line guide type shown in FIG. 20.” Paragraph 116
then continues by stating: “That is, in the two-leg type of fishing guide,
curved portions 82, 83 are formed between a pair of fixing parts 75, 76 and
the connecting parts 57, 58,” and then discussing the possible relative ratios
of synthetic resin and fiber in the curved portions and the connecting parts,
as well as the relative thicknesses of the curved portions and connecting
parts. This suggests that “the structure” of interest to Akiba in the
discussion of paragraph 116 includes the relative fiber content and/or
thickness of the curved portions and connection parts.
In summary, considering the first sentence of paragraph 116 of Akiba
in context, it is ambiguous as to whether “the structure described above”
refers to all of the structure disclosed in the entirety of the preceding
portions of the written specification (most notably the elements 7a, 7b and
7A of the connecting part) or only to the relative degree of reinforcement
between the curved portions and the connecting parts. Further, the Examiner
does not identify, nor do we discern, any reason why the V-shaped opening
(through hole 7A) of the other embodiments of Akiba would
necessarily/inherently be included in the Figure 20 embodiment. It is well
established that an anticipation rejection cannot be predicated on an
ambiguous reference. Rather, disclosures in a reference relied on to prove
anticipation must be so clear and explicit that those skilled in the art will
have no difficulty in ascertaining their meaning. In re Turlay, 304 F.2d 893,
899 (CCPA 1962).
Appeal 2019-006995
Application 14/345,383

10
For the reasons set forth above, the Examiner fails to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that Akiba anticipates the subject matter of
claim 12.3 Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 12.
Claims 6–8
Claims 6 and 8 recite that the plurality of fiber sheets in the frame
main body include:
a short-width fiber sheet provided between the fiber sheets and
extending along an extension direction of the frame main body
but having an edge on an end portion thereof that does not reach
the end surface of the frame main body such that the
short-width fiber sheet is embedded in the frame main body.
Claims App.
The Examiner’s findings with respect to this feature, which are set
forth on pages 6 and 8 of the Final Action, appear to rely on Akiba’s
disclosure in paragraph 100 of sheets cut in a narrow width and including a
number of fibers arranged side by side, in conjunction with Akiba’s
disclosure in paragraph 60 that “the frame may be reinforced by a plurality
of fiber bundles arranged in the whole of the frame.” We agree with
Appellant that this does not satisfy the aforementioned limitations of claims
6 and 8. See Appeal Br. 18 (noting that Akiba’s disclosure of sheets “having
a ‘narrow width’ [is] not equivalent to sheets having an edge on an end
portion that does not reach the end surface of the frame main body,” as

3 Our decision with respect to the anticipation rejection of claim 12 should in
no way be construed as a determination as to whether or not the subject
matter of claim 12 would have been obvious in view of the teachings of
Akiba. The Final Action does not include a rejection of claim 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for our review.
Appeal 2019-006995
Application 14/345,383

11
required by the claims). Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 6 and 8, or of claim 7, which depends from claim 6.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–12 102(b) Akiba 1–5, 9–11 6–8, 12

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART