Appeal No. 2000-0121
Application No. 08/773,665
With respect to the obviousness rejection of independent
claim 58 based upon the combined teachings of Jacobi and Osgood,
Sr., we readily perceive that the addition of the Osgood, Sr.
disclosure of a locking device for an automobile gas tank cap
does not overcome the fundamental deficiency of the Jacobi
disclosure. Simply stated, the Jacobi document would not have
been suggestive of the claimed "generally rectangular slot" in
the external wall of a portable electronic device, as explained
above relative to the respective rejections of claims 56 and 57.
Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claim 58 cannot be
sustained.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
We remand this application to the examiner to consider the
following informalities which are deserving of correction
(35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007