Appeal No. 96-4097
Application 08/138,634
present case, the examiner explains on pages 7 and 8 of the
supplemental answer how she considers that claim 59 reads on
Rimanek, and we are generally in agreement with her analysis.
Appellants argue that Rimanek does not disclose all the
elements recited in claim 59 because (supplemental reply
brief, page 2):
Claim 59 requires the engagement of the inner
surface of an external wall inhibits removal of the
slot engaging member. By contrast, in Rimanek, it
is clamp piece 4 that directly prevents locking
element 5 from being removed rather than engagement
to the inner surface of an external wall.
We do not agree. The engagement of the end 6 of
Rimanek's slot engagement member 5 with the wall, as shown in
Fig. 2, clearly inhibits its removal from the slot, as recited
in claim 59; otherwise, the device could be removed from the
slot even when pin 4 was in the Fig. 2 position.
Appellants further argue that element 4 of Rimanek does
not correspond to the pin recited in claim 59 because it does
not inhibit the slot engaging member from returning to its
first position wherein it is aligned with the slot. This
argument is not well taken. As shown in Rimanek's Fig. 3 and
disclosed at page 3, lines 18 to 20, element 4 maintains the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007