Appeal No. 2002-0339
Application 09/226,252
appellant argues (brief, page 9) that the applied reference
discloses “only projectiles formed by extruding mixed metal
powders, and fails to disclose or suggest a cold compacted
projectile of claim 23”.
We share the examiner’s view that the projectile of claim 23
reads on the bullet (projectile) disclosed by Knight. Further,
this panel of the board notes that appellant has neither argued
nor presented evidence that the now claimed unsintered firearm
projectile article comprising cold compacted iron powder would be
recognized by one skilled in the art as, in fact, structurally
distinguishable from the bullet yielded by the method described
by Knight.
Obviousness
We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 8 through 11,
16, 19 through 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lowden, but do not sustain the rejection of
claim 22 on this same ground of rejection.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007