Appeal No. 97-0480
Application No. 07/858,818
However, assuming arguendo, that the single aperture stopping plate/means did equate to a
retaining screen, we agree with appellants that the solid, bullet shaped macroprojectile of Figs. 2c, 8a,
8b and 12 cannot be fairly characterized as a carrier sheet as that term would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art when read in light of the specification, even though both the macroprojectile and
the carrier sheet have a “flat surface.” We also agree with appellants that impacting and deforming the
particle-coated 0.8 mm copper plate of Fig. 2b does not meet the claimed limitation of accelerating a
carrier sheet forward towards a retaining screen. (Brief, pages 12-14).
Furthermore, although the two modifications, i.e., Figs. 2b and 2c, discussed in Example 3 are
based upon the same concept of “mounting the small particles on a larger particle or surface,
accelerating the larger body by impact or ballistic means, and then stopping the larger body, while
allowing the smaller particles to maintain their velocity” (col. 12, lines 27-32), the examiner has failed to
explain how and why the skilled artisan would have selected, modified and/or combined various
portions of these two modifications to obtain appellants’ claimed invention. For example, the copper
plate of Fig. 2b performs the same function of stopping the macroprojectile bullet as the stopping
plate/means in Fig. 2c does. The examiner has failed to explain why the skilled artisan would have used
a movable carrier sheet as stopping means/plate, especially since a moveable “blast” plate/carrier sheet
would appear to be less efficient in translating the kinetic energy of the impacting macroprojectile bullet
to smaller particles on its surface, thereby diminishing the effective velocity and penetration of the
Page 9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007