Appeal No. 1995-2838
Application 07/966,707
the Examiner's statement that the claims do not preclude
inclined surfaces tapered inwardly as well as outwardly,
Appellant argues that claims 1 and 4 are not in means-plus-
function format and, thus, 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph,
does not apply (RBr2).
These arguments do not answer or show error in the
Examiner's rejection and reasoning as stated at EA7.
At the oral hearing we asked what claim language
precludes the Examiner's application of Katagiri in the manner
discussed, but did not get a persuasive answer. We have
carefully studied claim 1 and conclude that it does not
patentably define over the combination of Sumida and Katagiri.
The upper portion of the wall surface 8c" in Fig. 7 of
Katagiri which is inclined outward (col. 5, lines 9-12) is "an
inclined portion tapered toward an outside of said slider
formed on one end face of said engagement aperture," as
claimed. Note that this limitation only requires the inclined
portion to be on "one end face of said engagement aperture,"
which is consistent with Katagiri and with Appellant's Fig. 4A
which shows an aperture with a vertical surface and an
inclined surface.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007