Appeal No. 97-1475
Application 08/069,544
independent claim 18 on appeal. Not only is there no teaching of
locking the cover of claim 18 in a closed position with a lock
"having a primarily solid monolithic Nitinol shackle" as required
in claim 18, but, as is clear from a reading of Freeman (at
column 2, lines 28-32), there is also no teaching in these
references of "covering said ignition lock with a cover" so as to
prevent access thereto as required in appellant's claim 18.
Freeman expressly indicates that the user therein can "freely
manipulate the ignition key in the ignition key housing without
interference from the jacket." Thus, the examiner's rejection of
method claims 18 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will not be
sustained.
Regarding the rejection of claims 25 through 30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 utilizing Goldstein as the primary reference, we
again note that neither Goldstein nor Dutton teaches or suggests
a lock shackle that is made of "primarily solid monolithic
Nitinol," as required in claim 25 on appeal. As for the
recitations of dependent claim 27, we again point to the
deficiencies of Freeman as noted above, observing that Freeman
does not teach or suggest a cover member "covering an automotive
key slot of a motor vehicle ignition lock tumbler," or an
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007