Appeal No. 2003-1173
Application No. 09/991,855
Appellants must be referring to the tapered part 3 of slider rail 1, shown in Figure
1 of Nishimura, as the “flat surface.” As shown in Figure 1, and verified at the bottom of
page 7 of the translation, the width of the slider rails at the trailing edge side 1B is
greater than the width of the rails at the leading edge side 1A.
We agree with the examiner that the language of claim 70 does not require a
vertex (i.e., does not require that the sides of the rail intersect as the sides of an
alphabetical, typed “V”). The claim recites a “V-shaped” portion, which is broader than
a perfect “V,” and broad enough to be met by the general “V” shape of the rails shown
in Figure 1 of Nishimura. Moreover, as in claim 5, instant claim 70 does not limit with
specificity what portion of the structure may be considered the “leading edge.”
According to claim 70, a narrow part of the V-shaped portion is the “leading edge,” and
a wide part of the V-shaped portion is the trailing edge, which we find to be met by the
structure depicted in Nishimura Figure 1.
We thus sustain the Section 102 rejection of claim 70 as being anticipated by
Nishimura.
Section 102 rejection of claims 40, 48-50, 54-61, 63, 64, 67, and 68 over
Inumochi
Claims 40 and 61 in view of Inumochi
Appellants contend that claim 40 distinguishes over Inumochi because the claim
recites that “the leading edge [of each of the rails] is narrower than the trailing edge.”
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007