Appeal No. 2000-0121
Application No. 08/773,665
In claim 57, line 1, the recitation of the "locking
apparatus of claim 1" inappropriately references a canceled claim
as well as a locking apparatus (rather than a locking system as
addressed by independent claim 56 on appeal).
In summary, this panel of the board has:
not sustained the rejection of claim 56 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Jacobi;
not sustained the rejection of claim 57 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jacobi; and
not sustained the rejection of claim 58 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jacobi in view of Osgood, Sr.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007