Ex Parte Rader - Page 2



        Appeal No. 2006-0823                               Παγε 2                     
        Application No. 10/284,474                                                    

        initially closed via a plastic wall at at least one end, and                  
        wherein the hinge pin is held in the hinge line via contraction               
        of an entry hole formed by passing the hinge pin through the                  
        plastic wall.                                                                 
            5. A hinge assembly for securing a lid to a container, the                
        hinge assembly comprising:                                                    
            a hinge line formed in one of the lid and the container, at               
        least one end of the hinge line being initially closed via a                  
        plastic wall; and                                                             
            a substantially straight hinge pin secured in the hinge line              
        via contraction of an entry hole formed by passing the hinge pin              
        through the plastic wall.                                                     
            The sole prior art reference of record relied upon by the                 
        examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:                                 
        Schurman     3,886,645   Jun. 03, 1975                                        
            Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being               
        anticipated by Schurman.                                                      
                                 OPINION                                              
            In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given                    
        careful consideration to the appellant's specification and                    
        claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the respective             
        positions articulated by appellant and the examiner.  As a                    
        consequence of our review, we make the determinations which                   
        follow.                                                                       
            The initial inquiry into determining the propriety of the                 
        examiner’s Section 102(b) rejection is to correctly construe the              













Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007