Appeal No. 1997-1349
Application 08/520,629
the display covers the keyboard with its reverse surface by
sliding the hinge 6 along a slide rail 7 to point “b” and then
pivoting the housing in the reverse direction about hinge 6 as
shown in Fig. 1C. Appellants further argue that the slide rail
7 and the hinges 6 of Kunii are not an integral, single piece
member. Appellants on page 7 of the brief add that the closed
and the open positions, as recited in claim 24, correspond to
the positions shown in Kunii’s Figs. 1A and 1C respectively
which require the use of the “slidable feature” of the hinges 6
and the slide rail 7.
The Examiner on page 3 of the answer responds to
Appellants’ arguments by stating that Kunii does show an
integral, single piece member having two ends extending between
and connected to the display and the housing by the hinges 6.
The Examiner further points out that the closed and the open
positions corresponding to Kunii’s Figs. 1A and 1B do not
require using the slidable feature of the rail 7.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is
the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d
1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Claims will be given their
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007