Appeal No. 97-1475
Application 08/069,544
examiner's rejection of claims 11, 12 and 21 through 24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dutton in view of
Goldstein.
Turning now to the examiner's rejection of claims 13 through
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we note that the addition of the
teachings of Dalby to those of Dutton and Goldstein does nothing
to supply that which we have indicated above to be lacking in the
combination of Dutton and Goldstein. Moreover, as urged by
appellant, it is highly unlikely that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been led to modify the padlock of Dutton based
on the very specialized and diverse teachings of the space craft
launch lock mechanism of Dalby, absent appellant's own teachings
and the application by the examiner of impermissible hindsight.
Accordingly, the examiner's rejection of claims 13 through 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will also not be sustained.
As for the examiner's rejection of claims 18 through 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined teachings of Freeman
and Goldstein, we note that, in our opinion, neither of these
references teaches or suggests a method of "preventing access to
an automobile steering column ignition lock" as set forth in
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007