Appeal No. 1999-1486
Application No. 08/670,806
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issues
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellants’ specification and claims 7 and 15, the
applied patents, and the respective viewpoints of appellants1
and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
We affirm the rejection of claims 7 and 15. It follows
that we also affirm the rejection of claims 3, 9, 12, and 14
since these claims stand or fall with claim 7, as previously
indicated.
Claim 7 is drawn to a locking arrangement “for a hood of
a motor vehicle," without the inclusion of a hood or motor
vehicle components, i.e., claim 7 addresses a locking
1In our evaluation of the references, we have considered
all of the disclosure of each document for what it would have
fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into account
not only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which
one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to
draw from the disclosure. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826,
159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007