Appeal No. 2001-1380
Application No. 09/138,998
While appellants point out that the rear edge of the lid in
Akutagawa is not lowered from an initial height to a lower
position when uncovering the opening, we disagree. The
interpretation depends on what is considered the “rear edge” of
the lid. However, if either the vertical or the horizontal
portion of lid 11 shown in Figure 1 is considered the “rear
edge,” each of these portions is in a lower position in Figure 2,
after rotation, than it was in Figure 1. While it may be that
the point of lid 11 contacting box body 7 in Figure 1 is at about
the same height in both Figures 1 and 2, even if this horizontal
portion of lid 11 in Figure 1 is considered the “rear edge” of
lid 11, the rest of that horizontal portion is clearly lower in
Figure 2 than in Figure 1. If the vertical portion of lid 11 in
Figure 1 is considered the “rear edge” (which it is from the main
body’s perspective), then this vertical portion is clearly lower
(it becomes the horizontal portion) in Figure 2, after rotation.
With regard to the second, reverse, rotational direction
specifics of claims 3 and 4, appellants argue that Akutagawa did
not teach the return movement. We disagree. Not only would the
artisan have recognized that closing the lid would clearly take
the opposite, reversed, route, relative to opening of the lid,
but, as the examiner points out, the Constitution portion of
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007