Appeal No. 1997-3483
Application 08/254,575
asserts [answer, page 3] that “[i]t would have been obvious
... that the structure of the locking mechanism of Lo could be
modified to operably connect shopping carts as taught by
Lepage.” Realizing that this combination is still deficient,
the Examiner contends [answer, page 4] that “[i]t would have
been obvious ... to provide a card retaining means as taught
by Kilborn in the card lock of Lo.” Appellant argues that
none of these references teaches or offers any suggestion to
combine these references and concludes [brief, page 6] that
“what we have here is a combination of nonanalogous art based
on hindsight, a rejection made with eyes taught by the instant
invention.”
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The card
means of Kilborn are seized and retained for a totally
different purpose or reason and are not at all suggestive of
the use of a card for a locking mechanism as contemplated by
the invention and claimed in independent claim 20. Even if
combinable, there would be still lacking in the combination
the limitation of “bolt release and card seizure means in said
lock ... for releasing said member and card seizing said card
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007