Appeal No. 1999-1486
Application No. 08/670,806
(answer, page 1) that as to these latter claims, they are now
objected to as being dependent on rejected claims, but would
be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of
the claims from which they depend. It follows that only the
rejection of claims 3, 7, 9, 12, 14, and 15 remains for our
review on appeal.
Appellants’ invention pertains to a locking arrangement
for a hood of a motor vehicle. A basic understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 7
and 15, copies of which appear in “APPENDIX A” of the revised
brief (Paper No. 16).
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied the
documents listed below:
Claud-Mantle 2,333,466 Nov. 2,
1943
Poe et al. (Poe) 4,530,529 Jul. 23,
1985
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007