Appeal No. 2006-0112 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/194,739
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Jones in view of McClain.
The examiner relies on McClain for describing a projectile in which the smaller
diameter of the tip segment is approximately half of the diameter of the cylindrical body
segment. Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1 and therefore includes the subject matter a
tip segment that is defined by the function y= s tan x. We have examined the disclosure
of McClain and determined that McClain does not cure the deficiencies noted above for
the Jones reference. Therefore, we will not sustain this rejection.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Jones in view of Kennedy.
Kennedy is relied on for teaching a tail segment having a material composition
with a specific weight less than a specific weight of the tip segments. Claim 10 is
dependent on claim 1 and therefore includes the subject matter that the tip segment is
defined by the function y= s tan x. We have examined the disclosure of Kennedy and
determined that Kennedy does not cure the deficiencies noted above for the Jones
reference. Therefore, we will not sustain this rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007