Appeal No. 2006-0821 Παγε 4
Application No. 09/733,813
927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Moreover, in evaluating such references
it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the references but
also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
It is the examiner's view that Refouvelet describes the invention as described in
claim 1 except that Refouvelet does not describe an electrically nonconductive molded
body surrounding substantially all of the initiator subassembly except for an exposed the
connector end. The examiner relies on Taylor for teaching that it is old and well known
in the art to substantially surround all of the initiator/detonator subassembly.
The examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to extend
the pre-existing integral and unitary molded plastic body 10
of Refouvelet et al. embodiment in figure 1 such that it
surrounded substantially all of the initiator subassembly of
the Refouvelet et al. initiator to form an electrically-non-
conductive protective casing therefor, in view of the
teachings of Taylor et al.. ...[answer at pages 4 to 5].
Refouvelet describes and depicts in Figure 1, a detonator that includes a
insulating molding material 10 surrounding a portion of the detonator. Refouvelet also
describes another embodiment of the detonator, which is depicted in Figure 2, and
which includes an insulating molding material covering a portion of the detonator, as in
the first embodiment, but also a plug 16 made of the same insulating molding material,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007