Appeal No. 96-3021
Application 08/104,452
See Figures 1 and 4 of Ester. The muzzle brake means (35)
includes a cylindrical portion (36) which can be threaded onto
the barrel (page 3, line 16-19) and a casing portion (37) that
includes longitudinal slots (37a) which define a pair of
diametrically opposed furcations. According to the examiner
(answer, page 3 [sic, page 4]), the only difference between Ester
and that which is claimed by appellant is "that the subject
matter of the placing the breaching device against the target was
not set forth." To account for this difference, the examiner has
relied upon Majors, which the examiner characterizes as teaching
such placing and the advantages thereof, e.g., at column 3, lines
7-9 and 68, and column 4, lines 25-32. The examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art that the breaching device of Ester may be placed against the
target for the purpose of securing the advantages of Majors.
Looking to claim 1 on appeal, we again note that this
claim is directed to a combination of the breaching device/flash
suppressor and a shotgun barrel to which the device is threadedly
engaged. As was the problem with the Cox patent above, we do not
15
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007