Appeal No. 2003-1806 Page 4
Application No. 09/592,578
Claim 7, the only independent claim on appeal, reads as follows:
A hinge for an opening door or window frame having a general plane and
including a movable frame and a fixed frame, said hinge comprising one first and
at least one second knuckle part each provided with a leaf for fixing it to said
movable frame and to said fixed frame respectively of the door or window, a pin
which connects said first and second knuckle parts together such that they can
rotate, and adjustment means allowing adjustments to be made between said
first and second knuckle parts in a direction perpendicular to the general plane of
the door or window, said adjustment means including a sleeve which is
adjustably mounted in said second knuckle part for angular adjustment about a
longitudinal axis of the sleeve and has an eccentric cylindrical cavity into which
said pin is inserted, wherein said sleeve has a bottom wall which closes off the
cavity at the bottom thereof, said bottom wall and the end of the pin that faces it
both having an essentially hemispherical and mutually complementary shape,
and further comprising means for adjusting the height of the first knuckle part
relative to the second knuckle part, said means including a lower support for said
sleeve engaged inside said second knuckle part such that the lower support can
move axially, wherein said support and said sleeve have surfaces that come into
mutual axial contact and are hemispherical in shape with the hemispherical
surfaces of the bottom wall and the support being concave with the concavity of
each facing toward each first knuckle part.
In the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 before us in this appeal (final rejection,
pp. 2-3), the examiner (1) set forth the pertinent teachings of the applied prior art;
(2) ascertained2 that the differences between Balbo and the claims at issue were
(a) "mutually complementary spherical shaped surfaces of the hinge pin and sleeve"
(i.e., said bottom wall and the end of the pin that faces it both having an essentially
2 After the scope and content of the prior art are determined, the differences between the prior art
and the claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007