Appeal No. 2004-0100
Application No. 09/650,843
We now consider claims 14 and 15.3
With respect to claim 14, appellant argues that Fumero
lacks a continuous, removable bullet deceleration insert.
Appellant disagrees with the examiner’s interpretation that the
housing in Fumero can be considered only compartment 105.
Appellant states that not only is this inconsistent with the
examiner’s previous assertions that the ballistic ducts form
part of the insert, it is inconsistent with the teaching of
Fumero, and appellant argues that the examiner cannot pick and
choose from portions of Fumero.
On pages 4 and 5 of the answer, the examiner responds and
states that element 20 is considered the insert in Fumero and in
this regard, Fumero satisfies the elements of claim 14. We
agree. Element 20 as shown in Figure 22, and as shown in Figure
14 of Fumero, is an insert that forms a bullet deceleration
chamber and is slidably insertable into and removable from
housing 10. Therefore, we find that compartment 105 can be
considered the housing of container 20. See Figure 23 of
Fumero.
With respect to claim 15, claim 15 requires that the insert
is slidably removable from the housing. As pointed out by the
examiner, insert 20 of Fumero is slidably removable.
With respect to claims 17, 18, and 19, because appellant
has not separately argued these claims, we do not consider them
in this appeal.
3 With respect to rejected claims 14, 15, 17, 18, and 19, we observe
that appellant argues claims 14 and 15 on pages 9-10 of the brief.
Hence, we consider claims 14 and 15 from this grouping of claims.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007