Appeal 2007-1942
Application 10/368,975
14. The “preceding paragraph” is as follows:
The said sheet or sheets of said backing layer may comprise one
or more polycarbonate sheets. An auxiliary backing layer may also
be provided which is made up of one or more sheets of a resiliently
compressible foamed plastics material [e.g., polyethylene].
Additionally, if desired, a further impact absorbing backing layer may
be provided which is made up of one or more sheets of felted aramid
fibres.
(Sacks 1:63-2:2, emphasis added).
15. Sacks refers to the polyethylene backing layer as an “impact
cushioning” layer in contrast to the polycarbonate “impact spreading”
layer or the aramid “impact absorbing” layer. (Sacks 3:52-57 and 46-50
and 1:68-2:2).
16. Sacks describes the polyethylene layer as being “soft” and
“compressible” so as “to prevent injury to the skin of the body.” (Sacks
3:53-56).
17. Sacks does not teach a polyethylene layer as being “impact absorbing”
or otherwise teach that a polyethylene layer can act as an “impact
absorbing” layer.
18. Huerta is relied upon by the Examiner to show that “hollow-point
elongate bullets are known in the bulletproof shield art.”
19. Dennis does not dispute that such bullets were known or that the
material taught by Sacks could have collapsed such bullets.
III. Issue
Whether Dennis has shown that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
5, and 6 is in error on the basis that Sacks does not show a pair of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013