Appeal No. 97-3107
Application No. 08/520,976
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(b) as
anticipated by Reams.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
At issue here is whether or not Reams discloses the claimed
“environmental means responsive to detection of a high velocity
of the delivery envelop during water travel…”
Clearly, the disclosures of Reams and the instant
application relate to different inventions, the former employing
a hydrostatic sensor for detecting when the mine, descending
vertically through the water, has settled into the water to a
predetermined depth for exploding the mine when a target is
detected and the latter directed to hydrodynamically sensing high
velocity of the delivery envelope through the water along paths
other than a vertical descent path before exploding the mine when
a target is detected.
The question to be answered is whether the instant
invention, as claimed, distinguishes over Reams. The examiner
presents a compelling case as to the broad scope of the claim by
suggesting that the pressure acting against the piston in Reams
is inherently proportional to the velocity of the delivery
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007