Appeal No. 2004-1403
Application No. 09/908,224 Page 3
specification in that the projectile fragments were described as
being used to test the armor system, rather than being an
implicit part of the armor system, as alleged in the Request.
See, e.g., page 26, lines 12-18 and page 27, lines 12-29 and page
29, lines 4-16 of appellants’ specification.
In light of the foregoing, it is apparent that the above
discussed argument concerning an alleged erroneous claim
interpretation is not reasonably supported by the record that was
before us in deciding this appeal. In rendering our decision, we
appropriately construed claim 71 giving that claim the broadest
reasonable construction that is consistent with appellants’
specification. As appellants acknowledge (Request, page 2, last
paragraph), claim 71 is not limited to the three layer embodiment
described at page 6, lines 32-36 of their specification.
Consequently, the armor system of claim 71 comprising two layers
is the same armor system whether a projectile is fired at the
armor system to impact the first layer first or the second layer
first, albeit that armor system may perform differently depending
on which layer is impacted first.
The language in claim 71 respecting the arrangement of the
armor system first layer relative to a projectile to be received
manifestly does not describe the projectile as part of that armor
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007