Appeal No. 2004-0100
Application No. 09/650,843
With regard to claim 7, we do not agree with the examiner’s
comments made on page 6 of the answer, that the mesh member of
Duer has openings that can be considered “at lease one slot” as
claimed in claim 7. Appellant’s figures 5A and 5B depict the
claimed slots, and these slots are described on pages 14-15 of
the specification. The examiner does not adequately explain how
such slots are met by the mesh structure of Duer.
With regard to claim 14, on page 9 of the brief, appellant
argues that Duer lacks a continuous, removable bullet
deceleration insert. Appellant argues that the basket of Duer
extends along a small fraction of the length of the housing and
therefore cannot be a bullet deceleration chamber. On page 4 of
the answer, the examiner argues that Duer’s basket opening is
capable of receiving the barrel of a gun and the mesh would, to
some degree, decelerate a bullet. The examiner does not address
appellant’s specific arguments regarding claim 14 mentioned
herein. We therefore reverse the rejection of claim 14 and any
claims dependent thereon (which in the instant rejection
includes claims 15, 17, and 18).
We now consider claims 20, 21, and 22. On pages 9-10 of
the brief, appellant argues that, with respect to claim 20,
Duer’s basket 104 is not a bullet deceleration chamber and is
not formed from a material that would be qualified as a “bullet
deceleration” material. We disagree for the same reasons we
stated in our comments regarding claim 1. With respect to
claims 21 and 22, which depend upon claim 20, we also affirm
these claims, and note that appellant does not specifically
argue these claims. The housing of Duer includes a face plate
18 and filler material 16. These items equate with appellant’s
claim of a face plate in claim 21 and a deceleration medium of
claim 22.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007