Appeal No. 2004-0100
Application No. 09/650,843
With respect to claim 25, claim 25 depends upon claim 20
and recites that the method further comprises forming a
plurality of vents in the bullet deceleration chamber. On page
4 of the Office action of Paper No. 7, the examiner’s position
is that Duer’s mesh structure functions as vents. We agree. We
therefore affirm the rejection of claim 25.
VII. Conclusion
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 5, 10, 20, 21, and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Duer. We
reverse the rejection of claims 7, 14, 15, 17, and 18.
We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 12, and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Fumero.
However, we affirm claims 14, 15, 17, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Fumero.
We affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 11 as
being obvious over Duer.
We reverse the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being obvious over Fumero. However, we affirm the rejection
of claim 16 in this rejection.
We reverse the rejection claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious over Tabler.
We reverse the rejection claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious Duer in view of Fumero. However, we
affirm the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious of Duer in view of Fumero.
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007