Appeal No. 1999-1889 Page 19
Application No. 08/366,988
43 shows, moreover, that the minimum compression ratio
portion is also catercorner to a clearance, which is labeled
in Koitabashi’s Figure 6 as element 8.
Relying on Barta to disclose “dams (5) projecting from
opposite inside surfaces of a cartridge body that intersects
opposites sides of the surface-to-surface contact between two
vacuum producing materials (6, 7), wherein the ratio of
thickness of a first material (6) to the thickness of the
second material (7) appears to be about 1:3,” (Final Rejection
at 3), the examiner fails to allege, let alone show, that the
additional reference cures the defect of Koitabashi. Because
Koitabashi’s minimum compression ratio portion abuts a small
compression ratio portion and is catercorner to a clearance,
we are not persuaded that the teachings from the applied prior
art would have suggested the limitations that “walls of the
cartridge body around the second material are fully sealed.”
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 6, 18-20, 22,
24, and 26. We conclude with claims 10 and 21.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007