Appeal No. 2006-0821 Παγε 6
Application No. 09/733,813
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. as noted above. [answer at pages
4 to 5].
Craig describes an initiator that is covered by two sections (46,65) which are
joined by adhesive (col. 4, lines 37 to 47; col. 5, lines 1 to 12). As such, Craig does not
describe a unitary, integral molded insulation and thus would not have motivated a
person of ordinary skill in the art to extend the molded insulation described in
Refouvelet. This is especially true because, as is explained in the Avetisian declaration,
the process to form a such unitary, integral molded insulation over the entire Refouvelet
initiator would present an explosion danger.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain this rejection.
We will likewise not sustain the remaining rejections because each of these
rejections relies on the combination of the teachings of Refouvelet and Taylor or Craig
to suggest a unitary integral insulating molded body formed over the entire Refouvelet
detonator.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007