Appeal No. 96-0632
Application 08/131,376
the final rejection (Paper No. 8) and the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 14) and the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 13) and reply brief
(Paper No. 16).
Appellants’ Invention
In the prior art, and as illustrated in appellants’ Figures
11 and 12, cartridges were welded in the vicinity of their four
corners at points a-d. A gap tends to form in the rear end
portions 1 of the cartridges between upper and lower shell
portions thereof. With respect to the four embodiments
illustrated in Figures 3-10, appellants’ cartridge is constructed
to inhibit the formation of that gap. Such structure comprises
thick ribs 6 and 7 (the three embodiments of Figures 3-8), and 11
and 12 (the embodiment of Figures 9 and 10) which introduce
distortion stresses in the rear edge portions 1 of shells A and B,
causing the rear edge portion of each shell to bow towards the
opposing shell.
The Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
Claims 1, 5, 7 and 8
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented
by both the examiner and the appellants, we have concluded that
the rejections should not be sustained. We agree in general with
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007