Appeal No. 97-3555 Page 10
Application No. 08/534,692
art does not suggest the claimed hinge member. In that regard,
we note that Edwards' flanges 38 and 40 surround the perimeters
of his tray 12 and cover 14, respectively. Thus, the flanges are
not part of Edwards' hinge 16 which connects the tray 12 to the
cover 14. Edwards does not disclose or suggest providing the
first and second flanges of his hinge 16 with the protrusion and
recess as recited in claim 15. Accordingly, the subject matter
of claim 15 and its dependent claims (i.e., claims 16 to 25)
would not have been prima facie obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to independent claim 28, we agree with the
appellants' argument (brief, p. 27) that the applied prior art
does not suggest the claimed step of providing an entrapment
force upon a partial circumference. In that regard, we note that
Cannell provides an annular groove 24 which provides an
entrapment force upon the entire circumference. Consistent with
the appellants' disclosure, we interpret "partial circumference" 3
to mean not the total circumference. Thus, Cannell's groove 24
3In proceedings before the PTO, claims in an application
are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, and that claim language should
be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted
by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,
1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007