Appeal No. 2001-2639 Page 7
Application No. 09/386,753
ball, upstream of the compressed air source would appear to
render Lake’s machine inoperative, as the burst of compressed
air would not push the ball out of the barrel.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Lake would
not have suggested the subject matter of claim 1.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain rejection (1).
Rejections (2) and (3)
Slonaker is the jumping off point for the examiner’s
obviousness determinations in rejections (2) and (3). Having
carefully reviewed the disclosure of Slonaker, we can find
therein no structure which radially supports and centers the
ball on the centerline (central longitudinal axis) of the bore
and holds the ball in place so as to respond to the “support
means” recited in claims 1 and 7. From Slonaker’s description
of the bolt 40 (column 5, line 65 et seq.), the bolt 40
appears to merely serve an axial pushing function to move the
paintball into firing position and does not provide any radial
support to center the paintball on the centerline of the bore.
We have reviewed the teachings of Bullock and Junkin and
find therein no teaching or suggestion to provide structure in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007