Appeal No. 2002-1766 Page 5
Application No. 09/018,790
Jacobson also discloses that the jet of flame will simultaneously ignite the smoke
elements and throw them apart. As such, it is a reasonable inference to conclude from
the Jacobson disclosure that the smoke elements are ignited while at rest and
thereafter discharged through the tube. In addition, Brown discloses that the weapon
system therein disclosed can be adapted for use on a tower (col. 5, lines 22 to 25)
thereby providing further suggestion for ignition by remote control while the system is at
rest.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 20. We
will also sustain the rejection as it is directed to claims 21 to 30 and claims 32 to 34
which stand or fall with claim 20 (brief at page 4).
In regard to claim 36, appellant argues that the prior art does not disclose
deployment from a land transport vehicle. The examiner has not discussed this
limitation in the answer or the final rejection. In addition, neither Brown nor Jacobson
discloses a land transport vehicle. Therefore, we will not sustain this rejection as it is
directed to claim 36 and claims 37 to 42 dependent therefrom.
Remand
This application is remanded to the examiner for a determination to whether the
invention as recited in the claims is anticipated and/or rendered obvious in view of
remotely detonated bombs which are described in the prior art.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007