Appeal No. 2002-2074
Application No. 09/494,965
difference between the claimed invention and the reference
disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the field
of the invention. Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech
Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Sweeney discloses “deterrent ammunition” for inflicting non-
lethal impact shocks or stings on rioting crowds. The ammunition
comprises a projectile/sabot assembly 11 (see Figures 2 and 3)
composed of a liquid-filled ball 13 designed to rupture on impact
with a target, a cradle 15 formed of low-density material for
receiving and holding the ball, and a rigid disc sabot 17 secured
to the rear face of the cradle. A layer of rubber cement 21
secures the ball to the cradle during initial handling and
loading, but releases the ball from the cradle during flight.
Sweeney teaches that the projectile/sabot assembly can be
launched with relatively high velocity from a tubular barrel
extension 33 mounted on a conventional shotgun 31 under the power
of a propellant gas generating cartridge 41, or that “compressed
air or other gas may be employed, as in the case of launching
from a simple tube arrangement” (column 2, lines 5 through 7).
The examiner’s determination (see pages 4 and 5 in the
answer) that the method recited in independent claim 54 is
anticipated by Sweeney’s compressed gas embodiment rests on a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007