Appeal 2007-2306
Application 10/636,120
cannot be considered as an ‘extensible segment’ of any ‘telescopic hinge’”
(Reply Br. 6).
We are not persuaded by this argument. First, for the reasons
discussed above, we do not agree that the sleeve bearing cannot be
considered part of the telescopic hinge. Second, the Examiner is not relying
on the sleeve bearing for being an extensible segment, instead identifying
positioning rod 31 and arm 33 as the extensible segments (Answer 6) (“a
plurality of extensible segments (hinge segment 33 and hinge segment 31”)).
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
claims 1 and 11 are anticipated by Wakeman, which Appellant has not
rebutted. We therefore affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35
U.S.C. § 102. Claims 2-9 fall with claim 1 and claims 13-15, 17, and 18 fall
with claim 11.
4. OBVIOUSNESS
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Wakeman in view of Moore. The Examiner relies on Wakeman for teaching
“all the claimed subject matter except for a third segment in the telescopic
hinge” (Answer 7). The Examiner relies on Moore for teaching “a
telescopic device similar to that taught by Wakeman” having “a third
segment slidably engaged with another segment” (id.). The Examiner
concludes that “it would have been obvious to provide a third segment as
taught by Moore et al., in the apparatus of Wakeman, in order to increase the
expansion capabilities of the telescopic hinge,” specifically “without adding
to the overall dimension (height/thickness/etc.) of the housing” (id. at 7 and
11).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013