Appeal No. 2004-1796 Page 9
Application No. 09/682,167
This rejection of independent claim 14 also is deficient with regard to the
limitations relating to fixed aerodynamic surfaces, 60% spacing of the center of gravity,
and ejection charge vent hole. It therefore cannot be sustained.
(2)
The second rejection under Section 103 is that claims 1-14 are unpatentable
over LG in view of Barrowman and Kawasaki. LG and Barrowman are applied in the
same manner as in the other rejection of these claims, and Kawasaki for its teaching of
providing side thrusters in a rocket body. We first point out that Kawasaki does not
overcome the deficiencies discussed above in the combination of LG and Barrowman
with regard to the limitations of fixed aerodynamic surfaces and the location of the
center of gravity 60% of the distance from the Barrowman center of pressure to the
center of lateral area, and therefore this second rejection of the claims cannot be
sustained on those grounds.
In addition, while Kawasaki does disclose side thrusters, their purpose is to
effectuate course changes and there is no teaching that they are located “a distance
from the center of gravity sufficient to pitch the stable flying rocket in a manner to disrupt
the aerodynamic stability,” as required by independent claim 1, or are “sufficient to pitch
the stable flying rocket substantially perpendicular to the direction of flight,” as in
independent claim 5. In fact, since they are used for changing the course of the
Kawasaki rocket in flight (translation, page 1), acting in the manner required in claims 1
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007