Appeal No. 2004-1403
Application No. 09/908,224 Page 4
system. Rather, it is plain from reading claim 71 that the claim
language in question is merely descriptive of the impact
resistance of the first layer, described in terms of when that
layer receives an impact from a projectile before the second
layer of the armor system, not an imputation of a projectile as
an implicit component part of the claimed armor system.
For the above stated reasons, we will not alter our
decision, mailed June 30, 2004, as urged by the appellants in
their Request.
The Request for Rehearing is denied.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007