Appeal No. 2002-1119
Application 09/455,064
14, filed December 27, 2001) and reply brief (Paper No. 18, filed
February 19, 2002) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
Looking first at the examiner’s rejection of claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the collective teachings of Konopacki
and Fenner, we note that Konopacki discloses an apparatus and
method of gaining entry to a locked automobile when the keys or
other means of releasing the door locks are not available. As
can be readily discerned from Figure 1 of that patent, the form
of automobile in Konopacki is one having a pair of front and back
roll-up windows (6, 7) adjoining each other at vertical edges and
between which a blade or tool (18) like that seen in Figure 3 of
Konopacki may be inserted to pry the windows apart to provide a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007