Appeal No. 99-0643 Page 3
Application No. 08/828,225
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a key lock for a
vehicle in combination with an ignition switch. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading
of exemplary claim 10, which reads as follows:2
10. A key lock for a vehicle in combination with an
ignition switch lock cylinder having a face and a
keyhole therein, the keyhole of the ignition switch
lock cylinder having a length greater than its
width, the key lock comprising:
a pair of separate, rectangular planar flanges
disposed in parallel planes on opposite sides of the
keyhole, each having a throughbore, said flanges
permanently secured to the face of said ignition
switch lock cylinder and extending parallel to the
length of the keyhole; and
a padlock having a shackle, said shackle
received through the throughbores of said flanges,
said shackle positioned to prevent unauthorized
access to the keyhole of said ignition switch
cylinder, said padlock being selected from the group
consisting of a key-type lock, a combination-type
lock and a cylinder-type lock.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
In contrast to the examiner's statement in section (8) on page 2 of2
the answer, we find that the copy of claim 10 in appellant's supplemental
brief is substantially different from claim 10 as last amended on March 4,
1998. These differences include but extend substantially beyond appellant's
failure to include the amendments made to claim 10 in the March 4, 1998
amendment (see Paper No. 15 and Paper No. 16).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007