Appeal No. 2007-0507
Application 10/737,051
Claim 10, which depends on claim 7, specifies that the angled structures of
the lifter and the boss “comprise substantially flat abutment surfaces that are
substantially angled relative to a direction of movement between the inwardly
angled structure [of the lifter] and the mating angled structure [of the boss].” The
Examiner, in reading the recited abutment surfaces on surface 60 of slider 55 and
surface extension 66 (presumably the flat portion of that surface extension (Answer
14), fails to explain how these flat surfaces can be considered to be substantially
angled with respect to the direction of movement between the inwardly angled
structure of the lifter and the mating angled structure of the boss. Both of those flat
surfaces are in fact parallel to that direction of movement. The result is the same if
the recited abutment surfaces are read on surface 60 of slider 55 and the circular
end surface of battery pillar 42.
We are therefore reversing the § 102(b) rejection of claim 10.
The § 102(b) rejection is affirmed with respect to unargued dependent
claims 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, 23-27, 36, 37, and 40. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590,
18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
In summary, the § 102(b) rejection is affirmed with respect to claims 7-9, 11,
14-17, 22-27, 36, 37, and 40 and reversed with respect to claim 10.
ANALYSIS OF THE § 103(a) REJECTION
The independent claims rejected under § 103(a) are claims 1, 20, and 29,
which recite plural bosses. Claim 1 reads:
15
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013