Appeal No. 99-0629 Page 13
Application No. 08/778,059
We can find no teaching or suggestion in Breneman which
would discourage one of ordinary skill in the art from
providing an alternate mechanism, such as air compression, for
transferring an expulsion force to the bullet. Simply that
there are differences between two references (in this case,
different means of transferring expulsion force to a
projectile) is insufficient to establish that such references
"teach away" from any combination thereof. See In re Beattie,
974 F.2d 1309, 1312-13, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Accordingly, we shall sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 25 and 27.7
Rejection 3
We shall not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims
17 through 22, 24 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Breneman in view of Wilson.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
7In view of the appellant's argument directed to claims 17 to 22, 24
and 26 on pages 6 and 7 of the brief, we presume the appellant's grouping of
claim 26 with claim 25, rather than with claims 17 through 22 and 24 to have
been an inadvertent error.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007