Appeal 2006-3408
Application 10/885,524
It would have been obvious to modify the attachment
means of Titterton with a well known storage means by
providing the device of Titterton with a key ring attached
to the loop portion 25, as taught by Montano, as an
obvious matter of design choice to provide further
attachment means as desired.
(Answer 3-4).
Appellants argue that Titterton requires a disk lock customized to contain
slot 18 and thus teaches away from the claimed arrangement, which dispenses with
the need of customization of the disk lock (Revised Br. 11-12). We disagree. In
fact, Titterton teaches that its “offset loop portion is designed for extending a
flexible elongate element such as a string, cord, strap, or small chain therethrough
to permit attachment of the reminder unit to an object such as a user’s belt loop or
key chain.” (Finding of Fact 2). Titterton thus teaches that the disk lock reminder
unit can be attached to a variety of objects, including a key chain, not just placed in
a slot in the disk lock. Accordingly, we find Appellants’ teaching away argument
unpersuasive.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to replace the flexible
elongate chain, strap, string or cord in the motorcycle wheel disk lock reminder
system of Titterton with the key ring of Montano using methods known in the art at
the time the invention was made. Moreover, each of the elements of Titterton and
Montano combined by the Examiner performs the same function when combined
as it does in the prior art. Thus, such a combination would have yielded
predictable results. See Sakraida, 425 U.S. at 282, 189 USPQ at 453.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013