Appeal No. 2004-0100
Application No. 09/650,843
In view of the above, we affirm this rejection with respect
to claims 1, 5, 10, and 20-22, but we reverse this rejection
with respect to claims 7, 14, 15, 17, and 18.
II. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18,
and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Fumero
With regard to claim 1, on page 8 of the brief, appellant
argues that Fumero does not disclose an insert which has an
opening for receiving a gun barrel and which is formed of a
bullet deceleration material.
On page 4 of the answer, the examiner states that the device
depicted in Figure 22 through Figure 24 of Fumero shows a bullet
removable deceleration chamber 20, which is the insert, and the
insert opening is capable of receiving the barrel of a gun.
We find that the examiner’s position is not explained
sufficiently to support a prima facie case of anticipation here.
The examiner has not explained how in fact a barrel of a gun can
be inserted into inlet aperture 21 as depicted in Figure 14.
Inlet aperture 21 is discussed on page 17, second full paragraph
of Fumero. Because the examiner has not explained how Fumero
teaches that the dimensions of inlet aperture 21 in fact can
receive a barrel of a gun, we cannot agree with the examiner’s
position. We emphasize that claim 1 requires that the trap
comprises a housing and an insert within the housing. The
examiner has not explained how one could place a barrel of a gun
such that the barrel of the gun would indeed reach the opening
of the insert 20.
Because claims 2, 6, 10, 12, and 13, also depend upon claim
1, our position is the same with regard to these claims.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007