Appeal No. 98-1960
Application No. 08/673,921
position on the body (Figures 1 and 5). The lid flies open
under the influence of the torsion spring 26 when the catch
mechanism is released (column 1, lines 47 through 51 and
column 2, lines 15 through 17). For the above reasons, the5
subject matter of claim 1 is not anticipated by the Neale
teaching.
The obviousness rejection
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 2 through
13 and 20 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Neale in view of Ohshima.
Dependent claim 2 adds the limitation of the detent
including a second abutment for mechanical interlocking
engagement with a spring whereby the detent rotates with the
spring.
The combined teachings of Neale and Ohshima would not
have been suggestive of the content of claim 2, which claim
incorporates the subject matter of parent claim 1.
5The Neale disclosure is akin to the prior art spring-
biased covers described by appellant (specification, pages 1
and 2).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007