Appeal No. 96-3021
Application 08/104,452
disclose, teach or suggest a "shotgun," and thus even when
considered with the admitted prior art would not have rendered
the method as set forth in claim 8 on appeal obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art.
However, in considering the rejection of claim 8 based
on either Sargeant in view of Hoie, or Hawley, considered with
the admitted prior art, we reach a contrary conclusion. In
this regard, we note that it does not appear that the method of
claim 8 on appeal requires the furcations of the breaching device
to be against and in contact with the target when the shotgun is
discharged to breach the barrier/target. Instead, claim 8 sets
forth that the muzzle of said shotgun is spaced from said target
by a predetermined distance "at least equal to the length of said
furcations," thus allowing the muzzle of the shotgun to be spaced
further away from the barrier/target than the length of the
furcations when the shotgun is discharged. Given this
understanding of appellant's claim 8, we share the examiner's
view that the method as broadly defined in claim 8 would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the
collective teachings of Sargeant, Hoie and the admitted prior
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007