Appeal No. 95-2533
Application No. 08/018,125
pieces and plays the role of the recoil reducer” (see
translation, page 3, lines 22-24). Particularly in view of the
fact that the two pieces are disclosed as being made of a
material having flexibility and elasticity, we are of the opinion
that the shock-absorbing compressed air would, at least to some
degree, assist in the distention of the exterior piece when the
gas seal between the wad or obturator and the barrel of the gun
is effected.
From our perspective, it would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in this art to substitute in Ashton for his
means (A,B,C) for achieving shock absorption and a sealing of
propellant gases, the analogous shock absorption and means for
sealing propellant gases taught by the Swiss patent in Figs. 2
and 3. The artisan would have been motivated to make such a
modification in order to achieve the Swiss patent’s expressly
stated advantage of “ensuring a perfect seal which allows maximum
use of the gas pressure” (see translation, page 1). This being
the case, we will sustain the rejection of 1, 2, 12, 15 and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined teachings of Ashton
and the Swiss patent.
In summary:
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007