Appeal No. 1997-3476
Application 08/341,149
comprise respective side rails in the embodiments shown in
Figures 1, 2, 4 and 5 of Aizawa.
We reverse the rejection because we agree with appellant's
view expressed at the bottom of page 18 of the brief that the
faces 5a and 5b in Aizawa do not have any chamfer-like tapered
portions. None are apparent from the inspection of these figures
in Aizawa nor does the translation reflect any such discussion as
well. Contrary to the examiner's views, as shown in each of
Figures 1, 2, 4 and 5 the respective so-called side rails 5a and
5b do not appear to us to be tapered or gradually decreasing in
width or thickness throughout their entire length and the written
description of Aizawa does not suggest this as well. The
variability of the angle 2 does not meet this limitation since
this angle reflects the variability of the placement of the so-
called side rails 5a and 5b with respect to the so-called center
rail 4 on the surface of blocks 2/3 in these various embodiments.
Additionally, the angle with which the
so-called side rails 5a and 5b intersect the edge portions of the
floating head 1 or the blocks 2/3 does not meet the limitation of
a chamfer-like tapered portion.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007