Appeal No. 95-2533
Application No. 08/018,125
The examiner’s rejections are explained on pages 2-4 of the
answer. Rather than reiterate the arguments of the appellant and
examiner in support of their respective positions, reference is
made to pages 4-6 of the “new” or substitute brief, pages 1-4 of
the reply brief and pages 4-6 of the answer for the details
thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the appellant's invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
art applied by the examiner and the respective positions advanced
by the appellant in the substitute brief and reply brief and by
the examiner in the answer. As a consequence of this review, we
will sustain both of the above-noted rejections.
According to the examiner:
Ashton discloses a launcher having a barrel through
which a projectile is displaced, a propellant charge
(lines 44 and 45), an obturator A, a rear pusher
plate C and a front pusher plate B. The obturator A
includes a flexible barrier means containing a body of fluent
material (line 30) which is pressed against the wall of the
barrel when the charge is detonated so as to (1) form an
"efficient gas-check" (line 41) and
(2) absorb shock (lines 22-24). French patent
discloses an obturator having a flexible barrier means
(B',c) filled with a fluid (liquid (a)) for the purpose
of providing an obturator which conforms closely to the
shape of a barrel "while at the same time providing a
perfect obturation" (see translation, lines 1 and 2 of
page 60 [sic, 6]). It would have been obvious to one
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007