Appeal No. 1999-0653 Page 9
Application No. 08/226,564
lug extends into the key hole and blocks the path of rotation of the lug 13. A threaded follower
20 is then screwed tight against the key hole guard 15. In the construction shown in Figures 5-
8, a sleeve 26 is placed over the key hole guard 15 and rod 10 with apertures 28 of the sleeve
aligned with apertures 25 of the key hole guard, as illustrated in Figures 5 and 6, and the hasp
of a padlock is passed through the aligned apertures to prevent access to the key hole guard 15
and removal of the lug 19 from the slot.
The appellant argues that Schou does not anticipate claim 1 because Schou is directed to
a key hole device and not to a security device "for securing portable computing equipment" as
set forth in the claim (main brief, page 9). While we appreciate that the Schou device is
disclosed for use as a key hole guard, the Schou device appears to us to be fully capable,
without modification, of being used for securing portable computing equipment provided with
an appropriately sized security slot opening in a chassis thereof. Accordingly, the recited use
for the security device does not patentably distinguish the appellant's claimed device from the
Schou device. 6
The appellant's argument (main brief, page 9) that the lug 19 and separate follower 20 are not a
"unitary" body does not persuade us that the examiner's rejection is improper, as sleeve 26, which the
examiner finds reads on the "unitary main body," is a unitary body as required by the claim.
6 It is well settled that the recitation of an intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old
product patentable. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007