Appeal No. 1995-2838
Application 07/966,707
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The rejection of
claims 1 and 3 is sustained.
We have sustained the rejection of claims 1 and 3 because
Katagiri teaches a structure which happens to satisfy the
broad claim language. However, we note that Emori, U.S.
Patent 4,673,145, of record, expressly discloses, in
Figs. 11A-11C and the corresponding descriptions, an
engagement aperture (hole 52) with an outwardly tapered
edge (52a) that engages a complementary tapered surface of an
engagement protrusion (locking head 55). Emori also discloses
that the projection 9 on the tape deck has a tapered rear
end 9b. Thus, Emori expressly teaches tapered surfaces to
facilitate smooth disengagement of the engagement protrusion
and is clearly a better reference than Katagiri. Emori was
applied in an anticipation rejection in the first Office
action (Paper No. 6), in response to which Appellant amended
claim 1. None of Appellant's arguments in response (Paper
No. 7) persuade us that Emori does not show the engagement
protrusion formed with a complementary tapered surface for
engaging the inclined portion of the engagement aperture.
Claim 4
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007