Appeal No. 2005-2724 Application No. 10/236,005 II. Claims 6-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Hershey in view of Jalan. (Answer, p. 8-9). We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellants in support of their respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the §103 rejection of claims 1, 2 and 5-15 is well founded. However, we conclude that the rejection of claims 3 and 4 is not well founded. Our reasons follow. OPINION1 Claims 1-5 and 10-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hershey. The Examiner found that Hershey discloses a munitions cartridge transmitter (housing) that is dischargeable from a propelling device. The cartridge comprises a hollowed shell containing a power supply (235), such as, a battery, that provides electrical energy to a component such as a transmitter (230) and a signal generator (220), i.e., power consuming elements. (See col. 9, ll. 54-58) (Answer, pp. 3-4). 1 Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and the Appellants concerning the above-noted rejections, we refer to the Answer, mailed June 27, 2005, and the Briefs, filed May 4, 2005 and August 28, 2005. -3-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007