Appeal No. 2000-2128
Application No. 09/077,102
The appealed claims are drawn to an automated rental
system
for battery powered scooters, and are reproduced in the
appendix of appellant’s brief. 1
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Bae et al. (Bae) 4,983,903 Jan. 8,
1991
Guimarin et al. (Guimarin) 5,612,606 Mar. 18,
1997
The claims on appeal stand finally rejected on the
following grounds:
(1) Claims 20 and 27, anticipated by Bae, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b);
(2) Claims 20, 21, 23 to 28 and 32, unpatentable over Bae
in view of Guimarin, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejection(1)
Claim 20, the only independent claim on appeal, reads
(letters in brackets and emphasis added):
20. An automated rental system for battery powered
scooters comprising in combination,
1The examiner notes that claim 23 should be dependent on
claim 21. Also in reviewing the claims it appears that
“receptacles” in claim 21, line 2, has no antecedent basis.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007