Appeal 2006-3408
Application 10/885,524
1. Claims 10-121 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Titterton in view of Montano.
2. Claim 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Titterton in view of Montano and further in view of Fields or De Forrest. 2
ISSUE
The issue before us is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the following claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a): (1) claims 10-12 as
unpatentable over Titterton in view of Montano; and (2) claims 13-14 as
unpatentable over Titterton in view of Montano and further in view of Fields or
De Forrest. The correctness of the above rejections turns on whether the secondary
references may properly be combined with Titterton to provide (1) a motorcycle
disc lock reminder and a motorcycle disc lock held together by a key ring which
passes through said head portion and over said locking pin; and (2) a warning light
or LED.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we make
reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. Only those
arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this decision.
1 The Examiner originally rejected claims 10-12 and 14 as unpatentable over
Titterton in view of Montano. In the Answer, he corrected the rejections to group
claim 14 with claim 13, from which it depends (Answer 4).
2 The Examiner listed this rejection as over Titterton in view of Fields or De
Forrest, but it is clear from his findings in support of the rejection that he also
relied on Montano (Answer 8). Accordingly, we review this rejection over the
combination of Titterton, Montano, and Fields or De Forrest.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013