Appeal No. 97-3194 Page 7
Application No. 08/442,816
We find that the examiner has established a prima facie
case of obviousness with respect to the rejection of claims4
44, 45, 3, 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Damon.
Claim 44 recites:
A bicycle theft prevention device comprising:
a) a first generally U-shaped rod member including
first and second parallel arms joined by a bight, at least one
arm of said rod member including a plurality of lock engaging
means evenly spaced therealong,
b) a second U-shaped member being movable along the
arms of said rod member toward and away from said bight and
including first and second arms to telescopically engage
respectively the first and second parallel arms of said rod
member, and
c) a lock housing joined to said second U-shaped
member and containing lock means to prevent disengagement of
the arms of said second U-shaped member from the arms of said
rod member when the device is locked, and to permit
disengagement of the arms of said second member from the arms
of said rod member when the device is unlocked, the arms of
said second U-shaped member being freely disengaged from the
arms of said U-shaped rod member when the device is unlocked
and the members are telescoped away from one another.
Claim 45 recites:
4In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007