Appeal 2006-3264
Application 10/685,377
For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of
that claim and claims 2-4 and 6-14 that stand or fall therewith.
Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and requires “a plurality of
interchangeable plates, a first plurality of said plates having pellets sized to
absorb and dissipate kinetic energy from high velocity armor-piercing 12.7
mm – 14.5 mm projectiles, a second plurality of said plates having pellets
sized to absorb and dissipate kinetic energy from high velocity armor-
piercing 14.5 – 30 mm projectiles, and a third plurality of said plates having
pellets sized to absorb and dissipate kinetic energy from high velocity
armor-piercing projectiles over 30 mm.”
The Appellant argues that “[s]uch interchangeable armor plates is not
disclosed or hinted at in the references” (Br. 21). Cohen ‘781 discloses that
9.5 mm to 30 mm projectiles can be dealt with by using panels having
pellets with varied heights and diameters, and by using multilayered panels
(Cohen ‘781, col. 6, ll. 43-59). That disclosure would have fairly suggested,
to one of ordinary skill in the art, making interchangeable plates that have
the same size for protecting a particular armored vehicle part of a given size,
such as a door, but have different pellet heights and diameters, such that a
choice can be made of one of those plates, or multiple plates in multilayer
form, to provide the level of protection needed for a particular projectile
size.
We therefore affirm the rejection of claim 5.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013