Appeal No. 1997-1349
Application 08/520,629
In regard to the rejection of claims 32 and 33, Appellants
on pages 9 and 10 of the brief argue that Kunii does not show a
rear hinge coupled to the reverse surface of the display
device. Appellants add that the rear hinge is recited as a
relatively rigid sheet. Appellants specifically point to the
recitation of both a single piece mounting member and a rear
hinge means.
The Examiner on page 4 of the answer responds to
Appellants’ arguments by stating that the hinge as taught by
Kunii corresponds to the claimed rear hinge means with a rigid
sheet since claim 32 does not require two distinct elements for
connecting the display and the housing. The Examiner further
states that Kunii’s hinge is coupled to the reverse surface.
In determining the scope of claim 32, we agree with
Appellants that there are two distinct connecting elements.
Claim 32 does recite “mounting means” separate from the
“mounting assembly” as recited in the independent claim 24.
Therefore, claim 32 recites a mounting assembly including a
single-piece member as well as mounting means including a rear
hinge coupled to the reverse surface of the display.
17
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007