Appeal No. 1999-1748
Application 08/846,285
part of the examiner in rejecting claims 19 through 22, 24
through 29, and 35 through 38.
As to claim 19, in particular, appellants assert (main
brief, page 15) that
Neither the primary nor the secondary
reference discloses a metal foil ignitor
having a perforation distortion. Both
references are simple bridge elements, and
neither reference relates the perforation to
the creation of the spark plasma across the
perforation. The vaporization of a bridge
element is not such spark plasma-creating
perforation.
Contrary to appellants’ stated point of view above, and in
the reply brief (page 3), we readily perceive that the three
layer thin film device of Dahn with pin holes 16 through metallic
conductive layer (film) 10 and insulating layer 14, and bridge
element coating 18 (Fig. 2) would have been appreciated by one
having ordinary skill in the art as a metal foil ignitor having a
perforation distortion. Broad article claim 19 does not set
forth a perforation distortion passing entirely through the
electrical ignitor, as disclosed. Further, appellants’ article
claims do not preclude the presence of a bridge element coating.
As earlier indicated, appellants acknowledge in the specification
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007