Appeal No. 2004-0100
Application No. 09/650,843
On page 6 of the brief, the appellant discusses the
grouping of the claims. Insofar as the claims have been
separately argued, we address the claims separately in this
appeal. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and (8)(2002).
OPINION
I. The rejection of claims 1, 5, 7, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21,
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Duer
In this rejection, we consider each of the rejected claims.
With respect to independent claim 1, the examiner views
Duer’s basket member 104 as the claimed insert, and states that
Duer’s basket 104 has an opening that is capable of receiving
the barrel of a gun, and the mesh would function to decelerate a
bullet. Answer, page 4.
On page 8 of the brief, appellant argues that Duer does not
teach an insert which has an opening for receiving a gun barrel
and which is formed of a bullet decelerating material.
Upon our review of Duer, we find the basket member 104 can
be made of metal. See column 6, lines 23-28 of Duer. As stated
by the examiner, such a material is capable of decelerating a
bullet. We note, also, that the claims do not preclude a bullet
that is dropped onto the deceleration material. Furthermore,
upon review of Figure 2 of Duer, we observe that cover 18 is
removable, and upon removal of cover 18, basket member 104 is
capable of receiving the barrel of a gun. We therefore are in
agreement with the examiner’s findings with regard to Duer.
With regard to claim 5, we agree with the examiner’s
position made on page 2 of the Office Action of Paper No. 7.
The mesh member of Duer allows for venting.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007