Appeal No. 1995-2838
Application 07/966,707
The upper portion of the wall surface 8c" opposes and
engages the locking projection 6a during a portion of its
motion (col. 5, lines 12-16) and, so, satisfies the limitation
of "an inclined portion . . . opposing said engagement
protrusion of said slider lock portion provided on said lower
cassette part."
The surface of the locking projection 6a (engagement
protrusion) has approximately the same taper as the upper
portion of the wall surface 8c" and, therefore, "is formed
with a complementary tapered surface for engaging the inclined
portion of said engagement aperture." The limitation
"complementary tapered surface" does not require that the
inclined angles of the inclined portion of the engagement
aperture and the tapered surface of the engagement protrusion
be substantially the same; however, Fig. 7 of Katagiri does
show the taper angles to be substantially identical. We note
that the limitation "for engaging" does not require that the
engagement protrusion is presently engaged with the inclined
portion of the engagement aperture, but only requires that it
is capable of engaging at some undetermined time. In this
regard, we observe that the inclined surfaces of the
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007