Appeal No. 2002-0339
Application 09/226,252
pointed out by the examiner, have been well understood to be an
appropriate binder material in the mixture of powders that are
cold pressed (compacted) together to form a projectile. Thus,
notwithstanding the arguments of appellant to the contrary, the
overall Lowden disclosure, rather than teaching away, would have
clearly been suggestive of the invention now claimed.
The rejection of claim 22, dependent from claim 1, is not
sustained since, in our opinion, the Lowden patent, the only
reference applied to claim 22, would not have been suggestive of
a projectile “consisting essentially of cold compacted iron
powder”. As above, iron powder would have fairly been understood
to be a binder in accordance with the teaching of Lowden. As
such, we do not perceive that one having ordinary skill in the
art would have fabricated a projectile “consisting essentially
of” cold compacted iron powder, when following the teaching of
Lowden alone.
We sustain the rejection of claims 4, 14, 15, and 24 through
26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lowden in
view of Dautzenberg. In the brief (page 17), appellant’s only
argument is that the Dautzenberg reference fails to cure the
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007