Appeal No. 1999-1782
Application 08/853,790
attached to a line 12 which passes through holes 200 in the container (vehicle) door and body (Fig. 1),
or is mounted on the door entirely separate from the lock mechanism (Fig. 6). Neither of these
arrangements would teach or suggest the combined unitary assembly recited in claim 1.
Claim 1 and dependent claim 9 therefore would not have been obvious over Kerr in view of
Hayward.
Conclusion
The examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 9 is reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
) APPEALS AND
LAWRENCE J. STAAB ) INTERFERENCES
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007