Appeal No. 96-3021
Application 08/104,452
Thus, on this basis alone we will sustain the examiner's
rejection of claims 5 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Considering independent claim 8, we must agree with
appellant that neither Ester nor Majors discloses, teaches or
suggests using a "shotgun" with a tactical breaching device
threadedly mounted on the muzzle end thereof in the manner set
forth in claim 8 on appeal. As noted supra, the gun of Ester
would not be viewed by one of ordinary skill in the art as being
a "shotgun." Thus, the examiner's rejection of claim 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Ester in view of Majors will not be
sustained.
Since at least one of the examiner's rejections of each
of the appealed claims either under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or 35
U.S.C. § 103 has been sustained, it follows that the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 8 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in con-
nection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
17
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007