Appeal No. 2004-0100
Application No. 09/650,843
In view of the above, we reverse the rejection of claims 1,
2, 6, 10, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated Fumero. However, we affirm the rejection of claims
14, 15, 17, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Fumero.
III. The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Duer
Claim 11 depends upon claim 10, which depends upon claim 1,
and we affirmed the rejection of claims 1 and 10 over Duer, as
explained above.
Claim 11 requires that the bullet deceleration medium is
formed by pieces of rubber. The examiner states that rubber is
a commonly known material used in the art and would been have
obvious to substitute the material of Duer with rubber. Answer,
pages 2-3. Appellant does not dispute this statement made by
the examiner. We therefore affirm the rejection of claim 11.
IV. The rejection of claims 11 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Fumero
With regard to claim 11, claim 11 requires that the bullet
deceleration medium is formed of pieces of rubber. The
examiner’s position here is that although Fumero does not use
rubber, it is a commonly known material used in the art and
would have been obvious to substitute the material used in
Fumero with rubber. See page 3 of the Office action mailed
April 19, 2002 (Paper No. 7). We note that claim 11 depends
upon claim 10 which depends upon claim 1. In the rejection
discussed above, we reversed the rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Fumero. We therefore
reverse the rejection of claim 11, also.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007