Appeal No. 2002-1099 4
Application No. 09/208,119
15-17 of the lid are in close proximity with and inboard of the sidewall 3-5 when the lid is
closed to provide a relatively dust-free enclosure.
As conceded by the examiner, Hehn does not meet the limitation of independent
claim 18 that the spine does not extend beyond the sidewall when the lid is in the closed
position, or the limitation of independent claim 30 calling for a pair of tabs mounted on the
spine, disposed inwardly of the end walls when the lid is closed, wherein the tabs are
positioned at the ends of the spine with no portion of the spine extending beyond the tabs.
The examiner’s reliance on Koizumi to overcome these deficiencies is not well founded.3
Koizumi is directed to a storage case for a tape cassette. The storage case
comprises a main body member 2 and a lid member 4 interconnected by a spine 3. The
spine appears to be connected to the main body member and lid member by first and
second living hinges. As depicted in Figure 1, the main body member 2 and lid member 4
each have a peripheral sidewall that extends around three edges of a respective member
and partially along a fourth edge to a location adjacent an end of the spine, such that the
ends of the spine are disposed inwardly of the peripheral side edges of the main body
member and lid member.
In proposing to combine Hehn, Koizumi and Nakasuji to reject claims 18, 19, 24,
30, 31, 33 and 35, the examiner contends (answer, page 4) that it would have been
3The examiner also relies on Nakasuji in rejection (1), however, Nakasuji is not
applied for a teaching of the limitations in question.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007