Appeal No. 97-3196
Application No. 08/569,275
in the art (In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529,
1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).
Claims 31 and 32 stand rejected as being unpatentable
over Renne. As we pointed out above in our discussion of the
Section 102 rejection based upon Renne, the reference fails to
disclose the subject matter required by independent claim 27,
from which claims 31 and 32 ultimately depend. Considering
this reference in the context of Section 103 does not
alleviate that deficiency, since we fail to perceive any
teaching, suggestion or incentive which would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the Renne structure in
such a fashion as to conform to the terms of claim 27. This
being the case, we will not sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 31 and 32.
Claims 21-24 and 26 stand rejected as being obvious in
view of the teachings of Bratzler in view of those of Renne.
Bratzler is directed to a lock for a trailer hitch. While the
Bratzler device has some features in common with that which is
recited in claim 21, there are some key differences. First of
all, the Bratzler “cage” is cylindrical rather than
rectangular, as required by the claim. And this is for good
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007