Appeal No. 1995-2838
Application 07/966,707
Sumida, Figs. 5-8 and 29 and the corresponding
descriptions, teaches the subject matter of claim 4 except for
the limitations of subparagraphs (d)-(f). As to limitation
(d), we conclude that this limitation would have been obvious
given the teachings of Katagiri for the reasons discussed in
the analysis of claim 1. We also note the relevance of Emori.
As to limitation (f), the Examiner finds that Satoh,
Fig. 2, teaches a spring with a "tight winding portion" and
one end bent inward, and that Satoh, column 2, lines 11-29,
discloses a "pin supporting portion" created by the bent-in
portion that exerts force on the outer diameter of pin 108
(EA5). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to replace the spring and casing arrangement of Sumida
(presumably referring to the arrangement of Fig. 29) with the
spring and protruding pin arrangement of Satoh because they
are comparable arrangements or art recognized equivalents
functioning similarly (EA6).
Appellant argues that the language "at least one end
portion of said slider lock spring is bent toward an inside of
a coil portion of said spring to form a pin supporting portion
which is wound around said protruded pin" in claim 4 requires
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007