Appeal No. 98-2156 Page 12
Application No. 08/421,489
region. In our view, the artisan would reasonably infer (see
In re Preda, supra) that the hinge of Kiley is "essentially
free of pores" (claim 15) and that the cell walls have been
collapsed so as to form a "solid" hinge (claim 17). Moreover,
with respect to the recitation of "essentially free of pores"
(claim 15), "pore" is defined by The American Heritage
Dictionary as -- 2 A minute surface opening or passageway --5
(emphasis added) and Kiley expressly states that the surface
of the box is "smooth, closed, substantially non-porous" (see
col. 7, line 16) and, accordingly, Kiley clearly teaches a
hinge which is "essentially free of pores" as claimed. As to
the limitation of the hinge being "less than 0.060 inches in
thickness" (claims 16 and 17), this dimensional limitation
solves no stated problem insofar as the record is concerned,
leading us to conclude that such a provision is an obvious
matter of design choice. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555,
188 USPQ 7, 8-9 (CCPA 1975). See also Gardner v. TEC Systems,
Inc. 725 F.2d 1338, 1349, 220 USPQ 777, 786 (Fed. Cir. 1984),
5The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College
Edition, 1982, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007