Appeal No. 2003-1827 Page 2
Application No. 09/589,016
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a device for opening a lid of a trunk of a
motor vehicle, wherein an actuating element mounted in the trunk emits a beam to
actuate a closing system operable to lock and unlock the lid. Further understanding of
the invention can be obtained from a reading of representative claim 6, which is
reproduced in the opinion section of this decision.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references in rejecting the
appealed claims:
Jahrsetz et al. (Jahrsetz) 5,736,793 Apr. 7, 1998
Gager et al. (Gager) 6,222,442 Apr. 24, 2001
The following is the sole rejection before us for review.
Claims 2-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Gager in view of Jahrsetz.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 23) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection and to
the brief (Paper No. 22) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007