Appeal No. 96-3021
Application 08/104,452
1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1362 (1996),
quoting from In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936, 133 USPQ 365, 372
(CCPA 1962). Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's
rejection of claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Hawley.
As for the examiner's rejection of claim 8 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, we note that claim 8 is directed to a method for
breaching a barrier comprising: providing a shotgun with a
tactical breaching device of the type disclosed by appellant
mounted on the muzzle end of the barrel; loading said shotgun
with frangible ammunition; placing the furcations of the
breaching device against and in contact with a target to be
breached;
spacing the muzzle of said shotgun from said target by a
predetermined distance "at least equal to the length of said
furcations"; and discharging said shotgun. For similar reasons
to those expressed above in our treatment of the examiner's
rejection of claim 1 based on Cox, we also will not sustain the
rejection of claim 8 based on Cox and the admitted prior art at
page 2, lines 3-18 of appellant's specification. Cox does not
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007