Appeal 2007-2306
Application 10/636,120
hinging means 35, together with arms 30 and 33, positioning rod 31, and the
sleeve bearing in which it is received, form a telescopic hinge.
Appellant argues that Wakeman “does not disclose . . . ‘at least one
telescopic hinge’ coupling a lid to a housing” (Br. 6). In particular,
Appellant argues that the “support member 25 of Wakeman appears to be
formed as a single, rigid body that is not ‘telescopic’” and is therefore “not,
by itself, ‘a telescopic hinge’” (id. at 5). Appellant also argues that the
sleeve bearing “does not form part of the support member 25 of Wakeman
and, therefore, is not part of any hinge” (Reply Br. 5). Instead, Appellant
argues that the sleeve bearing “is clearly part of the housing 21 of Wakeman.
In fact, the support member 25 of Wakeman may be completely removed
from the housing 21 of Wakeman while the sleeve bearing remains
permanently installed in the housing 21.” (Id. (emphasis omitted).)
We are not persuaded by this argument. We agree with Appellant that
support member 25 is not, by itself, a telescopic hinge. However, we agree
with the Examiner that the hinging means 35, together with arms 30 and 33,
positioning rod 31, and the sleeve bearing, form a telescopic hinge. In
particular, although it appears that the sleeve bearing may be permanently
attached to the housing rather than to the positioning rod, we do not agree
that this requires that the sleeve bearing be considered part of the housing
and, therefore, not part of the telescopic hinge.
With regard to claim 11, Appellant additionally argues that
Wakeman’s support member 25 does not include “a plurality of extensible
segments” (Br. 7). Specifically, Appellant argues that “the sleeve bearing of
Wakeman is not connected to the support member 25 of Wakeman and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013