Appeal No. 2007-0507
Application 10/737,051
which faces the inside of battery receptacle 17, we find that surface extension 66
(including cavity 67) and surface 66 form an “inwardly angled structure.”
Although cavity 67, which provides the retention function, is a cylindrical surface,
it properly can be characterized as perpendicular to surface 60 because its axis is
perpendicular to that surface. Appellant’s arguments regarding this limitation are
unpersuasive because they fail to take into account that the Examiner is relying on
the ninety-degree angle formed by surface extension 66 (including cavity 67) and
surface 60. Appellant instead discusses curved cavity surface 67 without
addressing its angular relationship with surface 60 (Br. 8-9) and discusses surface
extension 663 without addressing its relationship to surface 60 (Reply Br. 2).
Turning now to the recited “mating angled structure” of the boss, the
Examiner found that this limitation reads on Ohgami’s cylindrical battery pillar 42
because its cylindrical surface is perpendicular to end surface 35b of battery case
32 (Final Action 10; Answer 10-11). We do not agree that the end surface 35b of
the battery case can be considered to be part of the recited boss. However, the flat,
circular end surface of the battery pillar is perpendicular to the axis of its
cylindrical surface, with the result that those two surfaces define an “angled
structure” of the boss. Furthermore, because the radius of curvature of the
cylindrical surface of the battery pillar is the same as the radius of curvature of
cavity 67 in guide wall portion 59 (i.e., the recited lifter), the angled structure of
3 The Reply Brief at page 2 is partially correct in characterizing “portion
66” as flat. Surface extension 66 of cam surface 65 includes a flat surface region
(unnumbered) and the cylindrical surface region 67 (Ohgami, col. 9, ll. 56-61).
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013