Appeal No. 2002-0339
Application 09/226,252
deficiency of the Lowden patent. The argument is not convincing
since we earlier determined that Lowden was not deficient. It is
well worthy of noting that Dautzenberg again informs us that, at
the time of appellant’s invention, iron powder was, in fact,
known for its use in making bullets, albeit for disintegrating
dummy bullets. Of course, Dautzenberg also clearly teaches the
use of zinc stearate with iron powder to facilitate powder
compression in the bullet making process, akin to appellant’s use
of zinc stearate with iron powder in making a frangible
projectile.
We sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lowden in view of Slater.
The only argument in the brief (page 17) is the assertion that
the Slater reference fails to cure the deficiency of the Lowden
patent. The argument is not persuasive for the reason that we
determined above that Lowden was not deficient. Slater also
clearly instructs us that, prior to appellant’s invention, metal
powder, “especially” iron powder (page 2), was known for use in
fabricating a frangible projectile, notwithstanding that the
alternative of a sintered form of powder was used.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007