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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007