Appeal No. 2003-1796 Page 6
Application No. 09/513,563
the obviousness of the subject matter of claim 16. Accordingly, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Claim 8
We sustain the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 8 reads as follows:
An apparatus comprising:
a discus shaped disk for use in armor systems, having a radius, a first
inclined surface co-extensive with a segment of the radius and a thickness, and
further having containment wrap coupled to the first inclined surface.
In the rejection of claim 8, the examiner did not ascertain any difference between
either Dunbar or Rudoi and claim 86 and did not determine that it would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have
modified either Dunbar or Rudoi in any respect to arrive at the subject matter of claim 8.
Thus, for the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 to be proper, claim 8 must be
anticipated by either Dunbar or Rudoi since it is well settled that a disclosure that
anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
6 After the scope and content of the prior art are determined, the differences between the prior art
and the claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007