Appeal No. 2005-1329 5
Application No. 10/187,038
In the brief (pages 7-8), appellant indicates that a first and dispositive point in this
appeal is that the element in Bullard pointed to by the examiner as being a “burst cup” is
not a burst cup at all, since it does not burst. Appellant goes on to note that throughout
the specification, the burst cup is described as a thin-walled device designed to rupture
shortly after the ignition of the propellant within the cartridge, and urges that the
structure in Bullard characterized by the examiner as a burst cup is not designed to
rupture. On page 8 of the brief, appellant contends that this issue alone “is, by itself,
determinative of this entire appeal.”
Thus, we look specifically to the structure (2-4) seen in Figures II and VI of
Bullard and pointed to by the examiner as being a burst cup. On page 1, at lines 28-56,
Bullard describes the structure in question and its operation. What is immediately clear
from a reading of this portion of the patent and viewing the drawings is that the structure
(2-4) relied upon by the examiner as being responsive to the broadly recited “burst cup”
of claim 1 on appeal is a hemispherical cup that includes a tin-foil waterproofing layer
(4) covering the domed end and hole (3) therein and that upon firing of the fulminate
propellant within the case (1) and anvil (2) the fire from the explosion of the fulminate
will readily pass through the hole (3) to ignite the charge in the main cartridge, with the
force of the explosion breaking through the water-proof covering (4) on the outer side of
the anvil (2). Thus, contrary to appellant’s assertions, the structure (2-4) pointed to by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007