Appeal No. 2001-2194
Application No. 08/995,722
The obviousness issue
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 4, 6, and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bliven in view of
Yanagisawa.
Like the claims described above, independent claims 4, 6,
and 9 also require the feature of first and second kensington
slots on the outer wall of a main body (claims 4 and 9) and first
and second locking portions on the outer wall of a main body
(claim 6), but in conjunction with a PC card slot feature.
We incorporate herein our analysis of the Blevin patent,
supra. As to the patent to Yanagisawa, it addresses a docking
station wherein operation of a security key 213 (Fig. 4) controls
a hook 215 that can inhibit the removal of a notebook computer
100; further, key operation can also inhibit the removal of a PC
card from a card slot 331 (column 10, line 32 to column 11, line
9). Collectively considering the applied prior art teachings, we
conclude that the teaching of the Yanagisawa reference does not
overcome the earlier stated deficiency of the Blevin patent, and
with the Blevin disclosure would not have rendered obvious the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007