Appeal No. 1996-0796
Application No. 08/097,662
identified
application. Subsequent to the final Office action dated June
24, 1994, Paper No. 8, claims 2 and 5 were canceled. See the
Rule 1.116 Amendment entered August 1, 1994, Paper No. 9.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on
appeal and reads as follows:
1. A closed bomb device for measuring performance
properties of energetic materials comprising a body
and a ceramic liner, said ceramic liner having a
thermal conductivity lower than about 8 BTU
inch/hour@oF@ft2.
In support of his rejection, the examiner relies on the
following prior art references:
Nakamura et al. (Nakamura) 4,419,971 Dec. 13,
1983
Hartsock 4,524,498 Jun. 25,
1985
Dillehay, D. R. (Dillehay), “Closed Bomb Testing at
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant,” Thiokol Corp.,
1986, pp. 107-122.
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6 through 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures
of Dillehay and either Nakamura or Hartsock.
We reverse.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007