Appeal No. 2004-2121
Application No. 08/160,835
11, filed October 6, 1995) and reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed
July 1, 1996) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants' specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
In the rejection of claims 1 through 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) it is the examiner's view that both Davis and Kellner
disclose a munition which comprises in combination, a general
purpose bomb (7, 8 of Davis and 3 of Kellner) and a penetrator
warhead (13 of Davis and 2 of Kellner) mounted in front of the
general purpose bomb and comprising a forwardly-directed shaped
charge, with the caliber of the penetrator warhead being at least
90% of the caliber of the general purpose bomb. Although the
examiner did not articulate any differences between the munitions
of Davis and Kellner and appellants' munition defined in claims 1
through 5 on appeal, we note that the examiner has indicated on
page 4 of the answer that
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007