Appeal No. 96-3021
Application 08/104,452
applied references, and the respective viewpoints of appellant
and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made
the determinations which follow. In accordance with appellant's
"GROUPING OF THE CLAIMS" (brief, page 3), we need only comment
on independent claims 1, 5 and 8. Dependent claims 2, 3, 6
and 7 will stand or fall with their respective independent
claims.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1,
2, 5 and 6 as being anticipated by Cox, we note that claim 1 on
appeal is directed, inter alia, to a combined tactical breaching
device and flash suppressor comprising a cylindrical body portion
(e.g., 12) having a longitudinal central smoothbore (18), with
said body portion recited as being threaded at one end thereof
and also as "threadedly engaging the muzzle of a shotgun barrel."
Claim 1 goes on to recite "said barrel having a threaded portion
in threaded engagement with said one end of said breaching
device" (emphasis added). These positive recitations in the body
of the claim make it clear to us that appellant's claim 1 on
appeal is directed to a combination of the breaching device/flash
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007