Appeal 2007-1942
Application 10/368,975
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
We enter the following new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a):
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sacks. As explained above, Sacks differs from the
claimed invention in that Sacks does not teach a pair of polyethylene layers
symmetrically disposed about said central strand layer. However, Sacks
discloses that a polyethylene layer is useful for cushioning impact and
“preventing injury to the skin of the body.” (FF 15 and 16).
Therefore, the claimed invention does no more than add an additional
layer of material which is known to protect a user from the impact of a bullet
by cushioning impact and preventing injury to the skin. Placing the
polyethylene layers at any place within the structure of the claimed fabric,
including “symmetrically” about the aramid central strand would have been
obvious since the layers would provide additional protection to the user
regardless of their placement. In other words, the claimed fabric appears to
be a combination of known elements for their known purposes. Nothing
before us indicates that any unpredictable result has been achieved. We
conclude therefore, that the claimed invention would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art who would have had reason to add the
additional layer at any place within the material’s structure with the
expectation that additional protection to the user would result.
There is no dispute on the record before us that hollow-point elongate
bullets were known and that one skilled in the art would have recognized
that the material of Sacks would have been useful in collapsing such bullets
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013