Appeal No. 1997-3483
Application 08/254,575
and for retaining the seized card until the member associated
with the other cart is inserted into said lock.” (Claim 20,
lines 11 to 15).
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 20 and, hence, of dependent claims 21 to 24 and 28.
Claim 25
This claim depends on claim 20 and has been rejected as
being obvious over Lo in view of Lepage and Kilborn, and
further in view of Crafton. The additional reference, Crafton
does not cure the above noted deficiency of Lo, Lepage and
Kilborn. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim
25 over Lo, Lepage, Kilborn and Crafton.
Claim 26
This claim depends on claim 20 and is rejected over Lo in
view of Lepage and Kilborn, and further in view of Seckinger.
However, Seckinger still does not meet the above noted
deficiency of the combination of Lo, Lepage and Kilborn.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007