Appeal No. 96-3158
Application 08/065,857
The examiner’s assertion that the recitation of a “closed
housing” or “closed unit” in appellants’ claims on appeal does
not preclude housings/units comprising openings (answer, page
6), in our opinion, is in error. When the separate “closed
housing” and separate “closed unit” terminology in appellants’
claims is understood and interpreted in light of the
underlying disclosure of the application, it is clear that
such claim recitations require housings or units that are
separate and distinct from one another (as seen, for example,
in Figures 1 and 1a of appellants’ drawings) and which are
each “tightly closed” (specification, page 4) so as to ensure
against any form of leaks in the gas generator and preclude
any contact between the igniter/primer material in the “closed
second housing” and the solid fuel charge of the “closed first
housing,” while also facilitating appellants’ stated objective
of permitting parts with critical fillings (e.g., closed
housing 1) to be separated from other parts (e.g., closed
housing 7) for conditioning, recycling or safe disposal
wherein said closed housings or units will not be a burden on
the environment and allow said environment to be protected for
the future (see, e.g., appellants’ specification, pages 3-4).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007