Appeal No. 2004-1006
Application 10/142,485
internal threads located in the bore adjacent the first end for threadably engaging an outside
diameter of the discharge end of the firearm barrel; and
the bore being tapered and narrowing only from a diameter adjacent the internal threads to a
smaller diameter at the second end.
2. The apparatus of claim 8 wherein the outer surface of the cylindrical body is knurled.
The appealed claims are drawn to a choke tube for a “shot” firearm comprising at least a
cylindrical body having a center bore, the internal threads in one end of the center bore are
engaged with the external threads on the barrel of the firearm, the other end of the center bore is
tapered and narrowed only from a diameter adjacent the internal threads to the end thereof, and in
claim 2, at least a part of the outer surface of the cylindrical body is knurled.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Linde et al. (Linde) 4,058,925 Nov. 22, 1977
Coburn 5,425,298 Jun. 20, 1995
Buss 5,814,757 Sep. 29, 1998
Schrader 88198 Feb. 28, 1896
(German Patent)
Ferhat 490,721 Feb. 24, 1953
(Canadian Patent)
The examiner has advanced the following grounds of rejection on appeal:
Claims 8 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ferhat;
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Schrader;
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schrader in view of
Buss or Coburn;
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Linde; and
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Linde in view of
Buss or Coburn.
Appellant states that dependent claim 2 “includes all the limitations of independent
claim 8 . . . [and] the claims stand and fall together” (brief, page 3). Thus, we decide this appeal
based on appealed claims 8 and 2 as representative of the respective grounds of rejection.
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2003).
We affirm the grounds of rejection based on Ferhat and Schrader and reverse the grounds
of rejection based on Linde, and thus, affirm the decision of the examiner.
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007