Appeal No. 2004-1796 Page 3
Application No. 09/682,167
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 16) and the final rejection (Paper No. 13) for the examiner's reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the Brief (Paper No. 15) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Representative Claim 1
A rocket comprising, fixed aerodynamic surfaces, a large
length to diameter ratio, a fixed center of gravity between the
Barrowman center of pressure and the center of lateral area
wherein the center of gravity is less than 60% of the distance
from the Barrowman center of pressure to the center of
lateral area after the pitch maneuver, and a side thrusting
means fixed on the rocket at a distance from the center of
gravity sufficient to pitch the stable flying rocket in a manner
to disrupt the aerodynamic stability of the rocket.
The Rejection Under Section 112
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires claims to set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity.
In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977). In making this
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007