Appeal No. 95-5048
Application No. 08/162,372
recite the physical and/or structural
properties "like" a hinge that the
Appellant intends to claim.
We disagree. Claim 1 further defines the term "hinge-
like" as a "connection permitting movement of the flap towards
and away from the outer wall." Therefore, one having ordinary
skill in the art would have understood the term "hinge-like"
as it is used in claim 1 as requiring a connection which
permits movement of the flap towards and away from the outer
wall. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
is reversed.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Schurman, either alone or in
combination with Byrns. The examiner sets forth the grounds
of rejection of claims 1 and 8-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based
on Schurman alone at pages 3 through 4 of the Answer.
Specifically, the examiner recognizes (Answer, p.3):
Schurman et al. discloses a blow molded
article that is double walled having inner
and outer walls and a space therebetween, a
connecting wall between the inner and outer
walls running substantially perpendicular
(see Abstract). The inner wall has an
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007