Appeal No. 96-1290
Application 08/042,719
means for acquiring a target, said acquiring means disposed
at a location remote from said gun; and
means for determining a trajectory of the target with
respect to the gun and providing information relating to the
target to the sighting device of the gun such that an operator of
the gun can aim the gun with respect to the sighting device to
hit the target when the gun is fired, said determining means
being in communication with said acquiring means and the sighting
device.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Voles 4,370,914 Feb. 1, 1983
Moore 4,531,052 Jul. 23, 1985
Boeck et al.(Boeck) 4,622,458 Nov. 11, 1986
Frohock, Jr. 4,787,291 Nov. 29, 1988
Jaquard et al. 4,922,801 May 8, 1990
(Jaquard)
Claims 1 through 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
' 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner cites Frohock,
Jaquard and Boeck with regard to claims 1 through 10 and 23
through 34, adding Moore with regard to claims 11 through 19 and
additionally adding Voles with regard to claims 20 through 22.
Reference is made to the brief2 and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the evidence before us and,
based on that evidence, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 1 through 34 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103.
2 Appellant also filed a FAX (Paper No. 12), which might be
considered a supplemental brief, indicating Contraves USA as the
real party in interest and that there are no known related
appeals or interferences. For purposes of our discussion and
reference to “the brief,” we consider the brief filed June 21,
1995 (Paper No. 10) to be the sole “brief” in the case.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007