Appeal No. 2007-0507
Application 10/737,051
We will begin our analysis with claim 17. This claim depends on
independent claim 14, which is similar to claim 7 except for specifying that the
lifter has an “angled retention structure” instead of an “inwardly angled structure.”
As with claim 7, the Examiner reads the “mating angled structure” of the boss on
end wall 35b of the battery and surface 60 of slider 55 (Answer 15). As explained
above, end wall 35b is not part of the boss. However, as also explained above, the
flat circular end surface is part of the boss and together with its cylindrical surface
forms the recited “mating angled structure.” The “substantially parallel abutment
surfaces” of claim 17 read on the end surface of the battery pillar 42, which is part
of the “mating angled structure” of the boss, and flat surface 60 of slider 55, which
surface is part of the “angled retention structure” of the lifter. These surfaces can
accurately be characterized as abutment surfaces because they are physically
capable of abutting other surfaces, albeit not each other. This is sufficient to
satisfy claim 17, which does not require that the “abutment surfaces” be capable of
abutting each other.
Claim 17 also reads on the cylindrical surfaces of battery pillar 42 and cavity
67, which are substantially parallel when they are abutting or almost abutting. The
term “parallel” is not limited to flat surfaces, as argued by Appellant (Br. 11-12).
See Webster’s II New College Dictionary 796 (copy enclosed), which gives as
definition 1.c. of “parallel”: “Designating curves or surfaces everywhere
equidistant.” Also, these cylindrical surfaces abut each other.
The rejection is therefore affirmed with respect to claim 17.
14
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013