Appeal No. 1999-2627
Application 08/516,516
Heathcoat devices have the same objective, i.e., to prevent
the theft of hoist-mounted spare tires, they differ
substantially in construction and manner of operation. In
this light, it is evident that the proposed substitution of
Heathcoat’s hoist shaft engagement element for that of McClary
rests on an impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the
claimed invention wherein the examiner has used the
appellant’s claims as a template to selectively pick and
choose from among isolated disclosures in the prior art. The
proposed reference combination also fails to account for the
limitations in claims 1 and 5 pertaining to the rotation
limiting features of the lock. The examiner’s determination
(see page 2 in the final rejection) that McClary’s padlock 45
inherently embodies such features is completely lacking in
evidentiary support.
Thus, the combined teachings of McClary and Heathcoat do
not justify the examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter
recited in independent claims 1 and 5 would have been obvious
at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007