Appeal 2006-3408
Application 10/885,524
B. Rejection of claims 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Titterton in view of Montano and further in view of Fields or
De Forrest.
In response to this rejection, Appellants argue that “[n]othing in Fields
and/or De Forrest suggests modifying Titterton in a way which would result in
joining a motorcycle disk lock via its locking pin to a disk lock reminder as defined
in claims 10 and 13.” (Revised Br. 15). The Examiner responded that “contrary to
Appellant[s’] arguments in the last two lines of page 15, the Fields and DeForrest
patents are not used to teach the disk lock and reminder structure, this is clearly
taught by the combination of Titterton and Montano.” (Answer 8). For the same
reasons as stated for the preceding rejection, we find no error in the Examiner’s
reliance on the combination of Titterton and Montano for the limitation of an off-
center key ring passing through the head portion of the disk lock reminder for
attachment to a disc lock when the disc lock reminder and disc lock are in a
storage-ready state as required by claim 13.
In its pre-KSR brief, Appellants further argue there is no teaching,
suggestion, or motivation to combine Titterton with any of the secondary
references (Revised Br. 12, 15-16). KSR forecloses Appellants’ argument that a
specific teaching is required for a finding of obviousness. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741,
82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Moreover, one of skill in the art would have been able to modify the
combination of Titterton and Montano to include an LED lock status indicator as
taught by Fields or De Forrest using methods known in the art at the time the
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013