Appeal No. 96-3037
Application No. 08/252,474
Claims 1, 2, 6-8 and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Bauer.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bauer in view of Creedon.
The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Supplemental Brief.
OPINION
Two of the rejections are under 35 U.S.C. § 102, which means
that a single prior art reference must disclose, expressly or
under the principles of inherency, each and every element of the
claimed invention. See RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data
Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. dismissed sub nom., Hazeltine Corp. v. RCA Corp.,
468 U.S. 1228 (1984).
The Section 102 Rejection on the Basis of Thio
Claim 1 first stands rejected as being anticipated by Thio,
which also is directed to a railgun. As disclosed (see Figure
3), the appellant’s railgun incorporates a pair of laminated
composite insulators 32, each consisting of a plurality of flat,
rectangular alternating insulating and conducting layers. The
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007