Appeal 2006-3408
Application 10/885,524
Id. (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory
statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)). However, “the
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter
of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id.
ANALYSIS
A. Rejection of claims 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Titterton in view of Montano.
The Examiner correctly found that Titterton teaches each of the elements of
claim 10 except said motorcycle disc lock reminder and said motorcycle disc lock
being held together by a key ring which passes through said head portion and over
said locking pin (Answer 3-4, Findings of Fact 1-2). The Examiner found that:
Since the loop portion is clearly an attachment means
(col. 4, lines 46-56), it is capable of receiving the lock
pin and attaching or joining to the disc lock in that
manner. Titterton fails to teach the use of a key ring
instead of the flexible elongate chain, strap, string or cord
to permit attachment.
(Answer 3). The Examiner further found that “Montano teaches the well known
feature of providing a key ring 22 on a loop portion of a key reminder device,” and
concluded that
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013