Appeal No. 96-2652
Application No. 08/329,755
the examiner directed our attention to any suggestion in
Mortensen or Hunting to modify Mortensen to include any sort
of confining structure. As such, we find no motivation to
combine the teachings of Mortensen and Hunting and conclude
that the only motivation must stem from the appellants' own
disclosure.
In addition, we agree with the appellants that it is not
clear how the two reference teachings could be combined. The
examiner's "example" of a possible location for the confining
structure is not logical because, as pointed out by the
appellants, case 12 is positioned to prevent any blow out
without the addition of rubber disk C.
In addition, there is no disclosure in either reference
of the establishment of a plasma with sufficient pressure so
that it tends to flow axially of the barrel into contact with
an electrode in a direction opposite from the direction of a
projectile acceleration and thereby tends to contact the
electrode or establish an undesirable electrical connection
between the electrode and another part of the discharge device
as required by the claims.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007