Today we review a patent application (14/419,258) by Spartan Precision Equipment Ltd. The invention relates to a rest for supporting an object, and more particularly to a rest which is in use attached to an object, for example, a rifle. Fig. 1 from the patent application shows the basic configuration that uses a magnetic coupling to enable smooth rotation as the rifle is rotated, thereby improving accuracy.
Claim 66 is one of the example claims of the application:
66. A bi-pod rifle rest,
comprising:
a rifle fixture which is in use
attached to a rifle, wherein the rifle fixture comprises a stand coupling which
includes a magnetic element for removable attachment of a rest stand; and
a rest stand for resting on a surface,
wherein the rest stand comprises a support body, first and second legs which
are supported by the support body and a rifle coupling which includes a
magnetic element for removable attachment to the stand coupling on the rifle;
wherein the stand coupling and the
rifle coupling each comprise circular or near-circular sections, which provide
for smooth rotation of the rifle coupling in relation to the stand coupling
around a vertical axis and allow for rotation of the rifle about a horizontal
axis.
The invention was focused on a
situation where the rest is attached
to the rifle, yet still allows smooth rotation. This operation can be quite
important in the field where, for example, a hunter is scanning the
horizon. Those who are active in these
arts understand that an attachment here is something quite different than a
mere support, which may provide a base for the firearm, but is not actually
attached to the firearm.
In rejecting claim 66, the Examiner found that a prior art
walking stick had all of the claimed elements (Barker, pictured below). However, the walking staff merely stated that
it could be used to mount other mechanisms that could support a firearm. The
applicants argued that because the examiner was relying on Barker to actually
teach the attachment, the examiner was incorrect.
In the end the Patent Office did not agree with the
applicants, asserting that there was no real difference between supporting a
rifle and attaching to it. However, in
the real world, such a difference can be substantial and relates to the
inventive features the applicant was trying to protect.
So, make sure that when trying to convince the Patent Office to allow your application that you provide sufficient evidence explaining the real difference in terminology as it would be understood by those skilled and well-versed in the technology and applications at issue.
