Appeal No. 2006-0823 Παγε 7
Application No. 10/284,474
Yet, as appellant has asserted in the brief, the specification
definition for the claim term “hinge line” requires not only a
lid but a container in combination therewith to furnish the
requisite aligned openings in the container and lid(s), as well
as a hinge pin as the specification definition provides for.
Consequently, the meaning of the term “hinge line” as it relates
to a plastic lid, as called for in claims 1-4, is not readily
determinable as the definition provided for that term in the
specification would require other components that are not part of
the lid of claim 1.
Moreover, appealed claims 5-7 are drawn to a hinge assembly
that require a hinge line formed in “one of the lid and
container” and a hinge pin. As evident by reviewing appellant’s
definition for the claim term “hinge line”, the claim requirement
for a hinge line in either a lid or a container is inconsistent
therewith. Also, the separate claim requirement for a hinge pin
in addition to the hinge pin that is part of the hinge line, by
definition, appears inconsistent.
In light of the above noted inconsistencies in each of the
independent claims on appeal, i.e., claims 1 and 5, we are of the
view that one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the
boundaries of protection sought by the claims on appeal. Also,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007