Appeal No. 2002-2074
Application No. 09/494,965
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 54, 62 and 63 as being
unpatentable over Garrett in view of Wood.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 17, 18, 20,
21, 33 through 35, 54, 55, 62 and 63 as being unpatentable over
Wood in view of Sweeney
Acknowledging that Wood does not respond to the projectile
carrier limitations in independent claims 1, 54, 62 and 63, the
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious at the time
the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
art “to add a cradle/sabot assembly as taught by Sweeney having a
cross-sectional size substantially equal to the ball guide (16)
to the end of the shuttle rod (90) in the thrower of Wood for the
purpose of protecting the projectile in the thrower as it is
launched form the tubular member (16, 64)” (answer, pages 9, 10,
12 and 14).
In short, this selective combination of features from two
distinctly disparate devices, Wood’s sports ball thrower and
Sweeney’s deterrent ammunition launcher, as well as the
particular rationale advanced in support of the combination, stem
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007