Appeal No. 2002-0345
Application No. 09/177,655
addressed to differences between the disclosed invention and the
teaching of Orsulak. However, it is the specific language of
claim 7 that is at issue in this appeal; language not
particularly discussed by appellant. The sole specific argument
(supplemental appeal brief, page 4) mentioning claim 7 asserts
that, as to Orsulak, "the second section is not ejected when the
inflator is actuated, as defined in claim 7." However, appellant
does not refer us to the specific corresponding and defining
language in claim 7. Nevertheless, as quite appropriately
brought to appellant's attention by the examiner (answer, page
4), Figures 2 and 6 of Orsulak clearly reveal that the second
section 80 (bulk portion) is ejected from the housing (container)
38 when the inflator (gas generator) 32 is actuated. The
narrative discussion of appellant's disclosure in the briefs
vis-a-vis the reference teaching, as earlier noted, simply does
not alter the circumstance that the language of claim 7 is
readable on the Orsulak patent and, thus, anticipated thereby.
In summary, this panel of the board has sustained the
rejection of claims 7, 9, and 10.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007