Appeal 2007-2195
Application 10/172,166
17-20, and 34-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mendenhall.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections for essentially
those reasons expressed in the Answer. We will not, however, sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under § 112, 1st ¶.
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of claims 34-36 under
§ 112, 1st ¶. According to the Examiner, the claim recitation “free of
ammonium nitrate” does not find original descriptive support in Appellants’
Specification. However, for the reasons set forth by Appellants, we are
satisfied that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that
the original Specification conveys the concept of a gas generant composition
that is free of ammonium nitrate. In particular, Specification Examples 1
and 2 describe compositions that have no ammonium nitrate therein, and the
disclosure at page 20, lines 15-15, describes a particularly preferred
embodiment wherein the composition comprises no ammonium nitrate. As a
result, we cannot agree with the Examiner that the original Specification
falls short of describing the claim recitation.
We now turn to the Examiner’s § 103 rejection over Taylor.
Appellants do not dispute that Taylor, like Appellants, discloses a gas
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013