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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007