Appeal No. 2005-0664 Page 3
Application No. 09/840,278
rejections and to the brief (filed September 8, 2003) and reply brief (filed December 31,
2003) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. For the reasons
which follow, we cannot sustain any of the examiner’s rejections.
We turn first to the rejection of independent claim 4, and claims 2, 3, 5-7 and 18
which depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over Daneshvar in view of Ratcliff.
Claim 4 recites a base portion and a cover portion connected to one another by hinge
portions and first and second inner lid portions each being connected by hinge portions
to the base portion and cover portion, wherein the first and second inner lid portions
include first and second latches for engaging the first and second inner lid portions to
and disengaging the first and second inner lid portions from a respective one of the
base portion and the cover portion. In other words, one of the first and second inner lid
portions has a latch for engaging one of the base portion and the cover portion and the
other of the first and second inner lid portions has a latch for engaging the other of the
base portion and the cover portion. As correctly pointed out by the appellants on page
5 of their brief, neither Daneshvar nor Ratcliff teaches or suggests such a latching
arrangement.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007