Appeal No. 1999-0347 Page 14
Application No. 08/804,635
only independent claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103) are
not rendered obvious from the applied prior art.
Specifically, the examiner has not cited any evidence that
would have suggested modifying Ball's secondary weapons 5 to
be separable "in response to countermeasures against said
weapon transport device" as recited in claims 1 and 13. In
addition, the examiner has not cited any evidence that would
have suggested modifying Ball's weapon system to include (1)
"means for sensing countermeasures against said weapon
transport device" as recited in claim 1, (2) the means recited
in paragraph (f) of claim 1, or (3) the step recited in
paragraph (c) of claim 13.
Since all the limitations of independent claims 1 and 13,
and claims 2 to 4, 8, 10 to 12 and 14 to 16 dependent thereon,
are not suggested by the applied prior art for the reasons
stated above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1
to 4, 8 and 10 to 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007