Appeal No. 95-4269
Application 08/123,700
absorbing means between said vehicle and said strips for reducing
breakup of material having kinetic energy on impact with said
strips of structural section by absorbing a part of said kinetic
energy through said energy absorbing means and resisting
penetration of said material into said air channels for
increasing ballistic defense of the grating system, said energy
absorbing means and said frame moving upon said impact to absorb
said part of said kinetic energy.
The references relied on by the examiner in the final
rejection are:
Miller 3,869,165 Mar. 4, 1975
Muller 3,900,222 Aug. 19, 1975
Katsanis et al. (Katsanis) 4,727,789 Mar. 1, 1988
The claims stand finally rejected on the following grounds:
(1) Claims 11 to 13, 16 to 18 and 24 to 26, anticipated by
Katsanis, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
(2) Claim 14, unpatentable over Katsanis in view of Muller, under
35 U.S.C. § 103;
(3) Claim 15, unpatentable over Katsanis in view of Miller, under
35 U.S.C. § 103.2
Rejection (1)
We will first consider this rejection with regard to claim
24.
In reading claim 24 on Katsanis, we agree with the examiner
that Katsanis discloses a grating system for an armored vehicle
2The examiner indicates in the supplemental answer that a
new ground of rejection of claims 11, 25 and 26 has been
withdrawn in response to the amendment filed June 26, 1995.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007