Appeal No. 2001-1372 Page 9
Application No. 08/018,841
an initial shape and then launched toward a target. A temperature rise due to the
impact triggers a phase transition of the alloy from its martensitic state to its austenitic
state, thereby causing the projectile or its deforming means to recover to its non-
deformed shape. As also noted by Davis (column 3, lines 26-27), the shape memory
alloy is considerably stronger in its austenitic state than in its martensitic state. Davis
discloses that the use of voids in the shape memory alloy portions of the projectile is
“useful” in all embodiments of the invention in order to enhance the speed of recovery
of the component by rapidly generating heat upon impact due to the collapse of the
voids being shocked (column 3, lines 60-64; column 4, lines 8-12). Davis also teaches
that “[i]t is understood that any of the embodiments discussed heretofore may also be
fabricated from shape-memory alloy containing voids” (column 8, line 68, to column 9,
line 3).
Appellants do not dispute that Davis teaches inserting the projectile into the
breech of a rifled bore, generating a high pressure gas volume in the breech behind the
projectile, propelling the projectile axially along the rifled bore, forming helical grooves in
the projectile by interference of the projectile with the rifling and spinning the projectile
by interaction of the high pressure gas volume in the bore behind the projectile and the
rifling in the grooves of the projectile. Rather, appellants’ only arguments with respect
to claim 15 appear to be that (1) Davis teaches using projectiles in a prestrained
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007