Appeal No. 95-4269
Application 08/123,700
answer “it seems elements 3-7 [of Katsanis] will crunch together,
making them movably held, upon a powerful blast.”
Appellants also assert on page 2 of their reply brief that:
Due to springs which move in the sub-frame, the
grill in applicant’s [sic] invention offers the feature
of absorbing kinetic energy and thereby minimizing the
creation of fragments which can travel through the air
channels. This feature is not at all available with
the arrangement disclosed in the reference patent to
Katsanis.
It is not apparent, however, why this feature should be present
in appellants’ apparatus and not in Katsanis’, since the Katsanis
corrugated sheets 5, 6 are disclosed as acting as “an excellent
shock absorber” and appellants disclose at page 2, lines 3 to 13
of their application that the energy absorbers can be any of a
wide variety of items, including “resilient compression
structures” and “sundry energy absorbers.” On page 2, lines 15
to 20 of their specification, appellants attribute to the use of
an energy absorber
the possibility of eliminating . . . some amount of
kinetic energy needed to penetrate the grating when a
foreign body collides with it and hence increase
ballistic defense at the same or less weight.
Since the Katsanis apparatus also employs an energy absorber 5, 6
with grating 4', we find that it would be inherently capable of
performing the same functions as appellants’ disclosed apparatus,
including, the functions of “reducing breakup of material having
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007