Appeal No. 2005-2724
Application No. 10/236,005
teaches and suggests a device having an arrangement that is encompassed by
the subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Appellants argue that the power supply source of
Hershey is not “a portion of the structure and is further not a load bearing
member.” (Brief, p. 12).
Claim 2 is not limited to the scope of Appellants’ argument. Claim 2
requires the power supply to be “a load bearing member formed in or on the
structure.” As discussed above, the munitions cartridge of Hershey functions to
emit electromagnetic signals after discharge from the cartridge-propelling
device. Thus, the structure of the power supply must have been designed to
resist the force exerted on the cartridge (i.e., load) when propelled and
sufficient to prevent the power supply from being expelled from the discharged
cartridge. In addition, the power supply component must be designed to resist
the forces (load) exerted by the spring (310) contained in the cartridge.
Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 5 are not persuasive. Hershey
describes a spring (310) that is connected to a wall of the housing (250) so as
to maintain a connection of the power supply to the contact point (420) of the
transmitter package. (Col. 10, ll. 43-50).
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007