Application No.: 11/133,373
`Examiner: E. Landrum
`Art Unit: 3724
`
`REMARKS
`
`Reconsideration of the pending application is respectfully requested on the basis of
`
`the following particulars:
`
`Rejection of claims 1-5
`
`Claims 1—3 and 5 presently stand rejected as being anticipated by, and claim 4 is
`
`rejected as being unpatentable over, Eslambolchi et al (US. 6,141,878). These rejections
`
`are respectfully traversed for the following reasons.
`
`Claim 1 has been amended to more clearly set forth a length direction of trimming
`
`system, and accordingly the reciprocating direction of the driven member of the head
`1
`
`portion of the trimming system.
`
`Claim 1 sets forth an elongated main body, wherein the elongated main body has a
`
`lengthwise dimension that further defines a length direction of the trimming system. An
`
`elongated head portion extends from an end of the main body generally along the length
`
`direction, and the head portion has a driven member reciprocating generally along the
`
`length direction.
`
`It is respectfully submitted that a “lengthwise dimension” of an elongated main
`
`body would be understood by a person of skill in the art to refer to the longer or longest
`
`dimension of the main body, and thus would be understood to refer to a length in the
`
`direction of elongation of the main body.
`
`Applicant notes that the term “lengthwise” is defined in the Merriam Webster
`
`Online Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com), as the following:
`
`1 : 'in the direction of the length; LONGITUDINALLY
`
`Further, the term “length” is defined as:
`
`1 : a : the longer or longest dimension of an object
`
`

`

`Application No.: 11/133,373
`Examiner: E. Landrum
`ArtUnit: 3724
`
`Accordingly, the length direction of the trimming system is defined according to
`
`the length (or longest dimension) of the main body.
`
`Eslambolchi clearly fails to disclose or suggest that a “head portion has a driven
`
`member reciprocating along a length direction of the trimming system.”
`
`A length direction of the device illustrated by Eslambolchi (in the direction of a
`
`“longer or longest dimension”) clearly is a direction from the rear to the front of the tool
`
`housing 28.
`
`While the examiner asserts, in the final Office Action dated January 26, 2006, that
`
`“the phrase ‘the lengthwise direction of the trimming system’ in amended claim 1 does not
`
`prevent the Examiner from naming the lengthwise direction of the trimming system as
`
`being along the grooved face of the head (22),” Applicant disagrees. Applicant is not
`
`aware of any basis for the examiner to construe terms of a claim in a manner different
`
`from (and even counter to) their ordinary meaning.
`
`Claim 1 has set forth “the lengthwise direction of the trimming system.” This does
`
`not leave the examiner free to select another length or another direction with respect to a
`
`component of a trimming system. When the cutting tool of Eslambolchi is viewed as a
`
`trimming system, (comprised of an elongated main body and a head portion), it is clear
`
`that the cutting members 22, 24 reciprocate in a direction perpendicular to the lengthwise
`
`direction of the trimming system.
`
`It is further submitted that Eslambolchi fails to disclose or suggest that the head
`
`portion is an elongated head portion extending from an end of said main body generally
`
`along the length direction of the trimming system.
`
`It is respectfully submitted that the
`
`cutting members 22, 24, which the examiner construes as a “head portion,” would not be
`
`construed by a person skilled in the art (or according to an ordinary meaning of the term
`
`“elongated”) as being elongated.
`
`It is respectfully submitted that, for at least these reasons, Eslambolchi fails to
`
`disclose or suggest each and every element set forth in claim 1 of the present application,
`P
`
`

`

`Application No.: 11/133,373
`Examiner: E. Landrum
`Art Unit: 3724
`
`and therefore claim 1, and dependent claims 2-5, are allowable over the cited reference.
`
`Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejections is respectfully requested.
`
`Conclusion
`
`In view of the amendments to the claims, and in further view of the foregoing
`
`remarks, it is respectfully submitted that the application is in condition for allowance.
`
`Accordingly, it is requested that claims 1-5 be allowed and the application be passed to
`
`issue.
`
`If any issues
`
`remain that may be resolved by a telephone or
`
`facsimile
`
`communication with the Applicant’s attorney,
`
`the Examiner is invited to contact the
`
`undersigned at the numbers shown.
`
`BACON & THOMAS, PLLC
`625 Slaters Lane, Fourth Floor
`
`Alexandria, Virginia 223 14-1176
`
`Phone: (703)683-0500
`
`June 22, 2006
`
`Date:
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`”4‘ S g:%
`
`FE
`J HN R
`ttorney for Applicant
`Registration No. 47,921
`
`