Appeal No. 1995-2838
Application 07/966,707
slider were slid in a rearward direction, as in the present
invention (Br8).
We agree with Appellant. Because the Examiner relies on
both Figs. 6 and 7, we interpret the rejection as relying on
the wall surface 8c' in Fig. 6 and the correspondingly
inclined lower portion of wall surface 8c" shown in contact
with surface 6b in Fig. 7 as the claimed "inclined portion
tapered toward an outside of the slider," because these are
the common inclined surfaces in both figures. It is not fair
to interpret the final rejection, as stated, as referring to
the portion of the wall surface 8c" inclined outward at the
upper edge in Fig. 7 (col. 5, lines 9-12) because it does not
find any correspondence in Fig. 6. Because the wall surface
8c' in Fig. 6 and the lower portion of the wall surface 8c" in
Fig. 7 are tapered away from the outside of the slider, it
does not meet the claim limitation of an "inclined portion
taped toward an outside of said slider." The rationale in the
final rejection is not persuasive.
In the examiner's answer, the Examiner finds that
"Katagiri et al shows in figure 7 protrusion 6a including a
complementary tapered surface engaging the inclined surface
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007