Appeal No. 96-3021
Application 08/104,452
Since we are in agreement with the examiner's position, we will
sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5 and 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined teachings of Sargeant and
Hoie.
Appellant's assertion that it is not clear from the
teachings of Sargeant that the device (8) therein is capable of
being placed against a target without the risk of grave danger to
the user, is noted. However, given that the attachment (8) of
Sargeant is so similar in appearance to appellant's device, we
are of the view that it would inherently function as a breaching
device, and in the same manner as appellant's device -- release
the gases and debris from a frangible round through the slots
therein with minimal blowback toward the shooter, reduce recoil,
and provide an improved degree of flash suppression when used in
the manner set forth in appellant's claims on appeal. Appellant
has not provided any evidence to the contrary.
The next rejection for our consideration is that of
claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Hawley. As seen in Figure 1, Hawley
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007