Appeal No. 96-3158
Application 08/065,857
reason we likewise refuse to sustain the examiner’s rejections
of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over either Husby and Bell, or
Husby, Bell and Cornellier.
An additional reason for refusing to sustain the
examiner’s rejections of claim 9 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. §
103 is the utter lack of any relationship suggested in the
applied prior art references between a first closed integral
unit and a gas generator housing defining a separate closed
unit as specifically set forth in lines 8-11 of appellants’
claim 9. More specifically, we agree with appellants (reply
brief, page 5) that the applied references fail to teach or
suggest a relationship wherein forces generated upon ignition
allow ignition gases to rupture part of the single housing
defining the closed integral unit “at said cylindrical
portion” of said closed integral unit and to rupture part of
said gas generator housing “at said recess” to activate the
propellant in the gas generator housing. The examiner’s
position as set forth in the last paragraph on page 4 of the
examiner’s answer, that forces generated upon ignition in
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007