Appeal No. 2002-1766 Page 4
Application No. 09/018,790
In support of this rejection, the examiner states:
Jacobsen et al[.] teach both a method of camouflaging and a
camouflage device. It contains a smoke munition which is
actuated by an electrical circuit connected to a battery[.]
Brown teaches the remote actuation of target acquisition
displays, laser means for locking on a target, and activation
of and delivery of said laser-guided multiple weapons to the
targets acquired. [Final rejection at page 2.]
Noting that remotely activating the smoke cartridge will aid in camouflaging or protecting
the pilot, the examiner concludes:
It would [have been] obvious to an artisan desiring to protect
the pilot . . . to remotely activate in the manner of Brown the
smoke cartridge of Jacobsen. [Final rejection at pages 2 to
3.]
The appellant argues that activation in Jacobsen occurs while the device is in motion in
contrast to the presently claimed invention wherein the active material is activated while
the device is at rest.
The Jacobson disclosure states:
The ignited smoke elements are fired from said tube with a
very large velocity. [Col. 2, lines 14-15.] [Emphasis added.]
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007