Appeal No. 1995-2838
Application 07/966,707
engagement protrusion of said slider lock portion is
engaged with said engagement aperture in said slider.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Sumida et al. (Sumida) 4,660,784 April 28, 1987
Satoh et al. (Satoh) 4,853,816 August 1, 1989
Katagiri et al. (Katagiri) 5,144,511 September 1, 1992
(filed August 19,
1991)
Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sumida and Katagiri.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sumida, Katagiri, and Satoh.
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 7) and the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 19) (pages referred to as "EA__")
for a statement of the Examiner's position, and to the appeal
brief (Paper No. 18) (pages referred to as "Br__") and the
reply brief (Paper No. 20) (pages referred to as "RBr__") for
Appellant's arguments thereagainst.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007