Appeal No. 1995-2838
Application 07/966,707
engagement aperture and the engagement protrusion in
Appellant's invention do not appear to be engaged with one
another in the locked position shown in Fig. 4A. In Fig. 4A,
the aperture has a small vertical edge below the inclined
surface 8c1 which abuts a vertical face of the engagement
protrusion 3d so the engagement protrusion must be lifted
slightly by a lock releasing mechanism on the tape deck before
the inclined surfaces on the aperture and protrusion can come
in contact; if this were not so, the slider would easily slide
backwards and would not be locked securely. Thus, the fact
that the locking projection 6a in Katagiri must be lifted
before its tapered portion comes into contact with the
inclined upper portion of the wall surface 8c" is not
precluded by claim 1 and is, in fact, consistent with
Appellant's own disclosure. It is noted that a previous
limitation in claim 1 that the tapered surface of the
engagement protrusion engages the inclined surface of the
engagement aperture in a locked condition has been removed
(Paper No. 11).
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the
combination of references provides sufficient evidence to
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007