Appeal No. 1999-0347 Page 3
Application No. 08/804,635
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a process and
apparatus for discouraging countermeasures against a weapon
transport device. An understanding of the invention can be
derived from a reading of exemplary claims 1 and 13, which
appear in the appendix to the appellant's brief.3
The art of record relied upon by the examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims are:
Ball 5,067,411 Nov.
26, 1991
January 29, 1988 Letter with enclosure from Richard F.
Honigsbaum to the attention of P. Napoli (the Honigsbaum
letter)
March 22, 1988 Letter from Maido Kari to Richard F. Honigsbaum
(the Kari letter)
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows : 4
3We understand the term "said weapon" as recited in claim
1, paragraph (d); claim 13, paragraph (c); and claim 17,
paragraphs (c) and (d) as referring to the "weapon transport
device" rather than the "target-intended weapon."
4Since the other grounds of rejection set forth in the
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007