Appeal No. 1997-3483
Application 08/254,575
obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification.” In re Fitch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23
USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re
Gordon, 773 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir.
1984). “Obviousness may not be established using hindsight or
in view of the teachings or
suggestions of the inventor.” Para-Ordnance Mfg. V. SGS
Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d at 1087, 37 USPQ 2d at 1239 (Fed.
Cir. 1995), citing W. Lish. Gore & Assocs., v. Garlock, Inc.,
721 F.2d 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ 311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Next we review the rejections of the different claims.
Claims 20 to 24 and 28
These claims have been rejected as being obvious over Lo
in view of Lepage and Kilborn. Lo discloses a generic card
lock. Lepage shows a string of carts locked to each other
using a non card (conventional) lock. Kilborn teaches a user
card being seized and retained by an autoteller. The Examiner
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007