Appeal No. 2002-1099 3
Application No. 09/208,119
Reference is made to appellants’ main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 20 and 23) and
to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 22) for the respective positions of appellants and the
examiner regarding the merits of these rejections. Appellants also rely on the declaration
of Ron Marsilio (Paper No. 13)2 as evidence of nonobviousness.
Discussion
Rejection (1)
Looking first at rejection (1), Hehn, the examiner’s primary reference in this
rejection, pertains to a video cassette storage container for securely holding and
containing two different sizes of video cassettes. Hehn’s container comprises a base
having a bottom wall 2 and a sidewall 3-5, a spine 24 connected to the bottom wall with a
first living hinge, and a lid 14 having flange portions 15-17 connected to the spine with a
second living hinge. Tabs 22 on the lid are received in receiving members 8 on the base
to hold the lid in the closed position relative to the base. A pair of upstanding, transversely
extending flanges 31, 32 are integrally molded with the inner surface of the spine adjacent
the outer ends thereof. These flanges are in alignment with flange portions 16, 17 of the
lid. As explained at column 6, lines 28-35, flanges 31, 32 of the spine and flange portions
2Paper No. 13 is incorrectly captioned as an affidavit.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007