Appeal No. 1999-0652 Page 7
Application No. 08/699,262
Moreover, the distinction between the clip design and
attachment taught by Bross and the claimed arrangement is
significant to the appellant's invention. Specifically, by
means of the claimed L-shaped tension tool configuration and
the removable attachment means, the tension tool serves a dual
function as a clip to facilitate carriage of the tool in a
shirt pocket and as a tension tool for tensioning the lock
plug when the lock pick is in use.
For the foregoing reasons, we cannot sustain the
examiner's rejection of claim 1, and claims 2 and 3 which
depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 4
(...continued)3
would not, in our opinion, be capable of such use.
We note, for the record, that we consider the Kern, Corcoran and Cooke4
references cited in the answer as evidence that paper clips and bobby pins
were known at the time of the appellant's invention for use in picking locks
to be irrelevant to the issue of patentability of the claims on appeal over Di
Stefano in view of Bross, for the reasons discussed above.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007