Appeal No. 99-0629 Page 12
Application No. 08/778,059
appellant's air compressing mechanism (brief, page 6). The
appellant does not set forth any specific basis for this
assertion.
Like the examiner (answer, page 5), we find that Breneman
merely teaches one means for launching projectiles. Tsao
recognizes air compression as an alternative to the type of
propulsion mechanism disclosed by Breneman and suggests
advantages, such as safety and durability, of using an air
compression mechanism (column 1, lines 5 through 36). For the
foregoing reasons, we are satisfied that the combined
teachings of Breneman and Tsao would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art modification of the Breneman
apparatus by replacing the direct impact mechanism with an air
compression mechanism.
As to the specific question of "teaching away," our
reviewing court in In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d
1130, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1994) stated:
A reference may be said to teach away when a person of
ordinary skill, upon [examining] the reference, would be
discouraged from following the path set out in the
reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007