Appeal No. 2002-0339
Application 09/226,252
Appellant argues (brief, pages 9 through 16) that the
rejected claims are not obvious since Lowden does not provide any
examples of a projectile comprising iron powder, and fails to
disclose or suggest such a projectile. According to appellant,
Lowden is devoid of any teaching or suggestion of the use of iron
in a projectile. We find ourselves in basic agreement with the
examiner’s response in the answer (pages 6 through 12) to the
arguments advanced by appellant relative to claims 1, 5, 6, 8
through 11, 16, 19 through 21, and 23, but add the following in
further support thereof.
Contrary to appellant’s statement before this panel of the
board that Lowden is “devoid” of any teaching or suggestion of
the use of iron in a projectile, a reading of the Lowden patent
quickly reveals to us that iron is very well known for use in a
projectile to those having ordinary skill in the art, as follows:
iron in projectiles during World War II (column 1, lines 64
through 67); partially densified iron powder in a frangible
projectile (column 2, lines 6 through 15); and lead-free
shotshell pellets made of an alloy of iron and tungsten (column
2, lines 57 through 61). Thus, in following the material choice
guidelines outlined by the patentee Lowden, iron would, as
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007