Appeal No. 1999-0185 Page 2
Application No. 08/583,481
According to claim 10, the only independent method claim on
appeal, a protective nose cone is ejected as one piece
during a period in which the vehicle’s propulsion thrust is
interrupted. According to claim 6, the only independent
vehicle claim on appeal, springs constitute the means for
ejecting the single piece nose cone from the launcher.
A copy of the appealed claims is appended to appellant’s
brief.
The following reference is relied upon by the examiner
as evidence of anticipation in support of his rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b):
Johnson et al. (Johnson) 5,178,347
Jan. 12, 1993
Claims 2 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Johnson. Reference is made to the
examiner’s answer for details of this rejection.
To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose
every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It follows that the absence from
the reference of any element of the claim negates anticipation
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007