Appeal No. 2002-1119
Application 09/455,064
Like appellant, it is our opinion that there is no basis in
the references themselves which would have been suggestive of the
totally reconstructive combination of their individual features
as proposed by the examiner, and that the only suggestion for the
particular combination urged by the examiner comes from hindsight
derived from appellant’s own disclosure. Accordingly, it is our
determination that the examiner’s rejection of claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Konopacki and
Fenner will not be sustained.
Turning now to the examiner’s rejection of claim 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Konopacki, Fenner
and Weinraub, we must again agree with appellant (brief, page 9)
that the applied references utilized by the examiner are not
fairly combinable in the manner urged by the examiner. Weinraub
represents yet another apparatus and method of gaining entry to a
locked automobile when the keys or other means of releasing the
door locks are not available. In Weinraub a small wedge (32) is
inserted at the outside of a closed window (34) and slid
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007