Appeal No. 96-1036
Application 07/979,627
anticipate claims 1-5. The rejection of claims 1-5 is
reversed.
The examiner argues that figure 13B shows a different
embodiment than figure 3 and, therefore, figure 13B does not
indicate that figure 3 of Saito is in error (3dSEA7).
Appellant argues that "the mere presence of differences
[between figure 3 and figure 13B] does not mean that the
grooves must be different" (2dRBr6). We find that
figure 13B correctly shows the groove 20. The embodiment of
figures 13A and 13B differs from the embodiment of figures 2
and 3 only in that the keeper 210 is struck from a web
portion 17 of shutter 14' (instead of using an inwardly bent
end defining the keeper 21a as in figures 2 and 3) and the
latch 22' pivots on a pivot pin 23' and is biased by a
spring 24'b (instead of using a resilient one-piece latch 22
as in figures 2 and 3) (col. 9, lines 26-36). The different
structure of the latch and keeper does not change the shape
or width of the groove 20.
The examiner argues that "the lines shown in the
drawing are not precluded from illustrated [sic] two
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007