Appeal No. 96-3021
Application 08/104,452
art, or based on Hawley and the admitted prior art. That is, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of appellant's invention, based on the admitted prior
art at page 2, lines 3-18 of appellant's specification, to have
loaded either the shotgun of Hawley, or that of Sargeant as
modified by Hoie, with frangible ammunition, to then space the
muzzle of said shotgun away from said target by a predetermined
distance "at least equal to the length of said furcations," that
is, at a distance where the muzzle of the shotgun is spaced
further away from the barrier/target than the length of the
furcations, and then to discharge the shotgun so as to breach the
barrier/target. Given this understanding, we will sustain the
examiner's rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over either Sargeant in view of Hoie, or Hawley,
considered with the admitted prior art at page 2, lines 3-18 of
appellant's specification.
The last of the examiner's rejections for our review is
that of claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Ester in view of Majors. Ester
discloses a gun having a smooth bore barrel (i.e., at 13) and a
muzzle brake means (35) mounted to the muzzle end of the barrel.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007