Appeal No. 96-3021
Application 08/104,452
However, like the examiner, we consider that one of
ordinary skill in the art would view the explosively actuated
device of Cox as broadly being a "firearm," and thus as being
anticipatory of the firearm defined in appellant's claim 5 on
appeal. Appellant's argument (brief, pages 3-4) that there is no
mention in Cox of a shotgun barrel, has no bearing on claim 5,
since this claim does not recite a "shotgun barrel." Thus, the
examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
based on Cox is sustained.
We next review the examiner's rejection of claims 1
through 3, 5 and 6 as being unpatentable over Sargeant in view of
Hoie. Like the examiner, we are of the opinion that Sargeant
(e.g., Figures 8-10) discloses the subject matter of appellant's
independent claims 1 and 5 except for the recitation in those
claims concerning the breaching device/flash suppressor being
threadedly engaged with the muzzle of a shotgun barrel (claim 1),
or threadedly mounted to a smooth bore barrel of a firearm
(claim 5). While the attachment (8) of Sargeant is clearly
fitted onto the end of the barrel (1) of the shotgun therein, as
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007